The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking judicial intervention in the reported “acute shortage” of domestic LPG cylinders across the country. A bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the supply of essential resources falls squarely within the executive’s domain and cited the ongoing conflict in West Asia as a primary factor for the current disruption.
The court emphasized that the judiciary cannot issue “futile” directions on matters of economic policy, such as the import, export, or distribution of commodities, particularly when the Central Government has already invoked measures like the Essential Commodities Act to manage the crisis.
The petitioner approached the High Court citing a severe crisis in the availability of domestic LPG cylinders. The plea alleged that millions of families were suffering due to the shortage, leading to a burgeoning black market where cylinders were reportedly being sold for as much as ₹5,000. The petitioner sought a “mandamus” (a judicial command) to the government to ensure regular supply, a restraint on LPG exports during the shortage, and the formation of a judicial panel to supervise the situation.
The petitioner contended that the Centre had “failed in its duty” to provide basic cooking fuel to its citizens. He further claimed that 75% of Indian families rely on LPG, and even the High Court’s own canteen had been affected by the scarcity.
However, the court questioned the legal basis of the claim, asking the petitioner to point toward a specific law that casts a mandatory “duty” on the government to ensure an uninterrupted supply of cylinders to every household regardless of global resource constraints.
The bench was critical of the petitioner’s request for the court to interfere in executive functions. “Are we running a government? We do not interfere in such matters,” the bench remarked.
Addressing the complexities of global supply chains, the court noted:
“These are matters to be tackled by the executive considering the exigencies caused not only because of the demand but also the problems at the supply end. Mandamus cannot be issued in such a situation. You are asking us to issue a mandamus like ‘eradicate poverty.’ The obligation of the government or oil companies in such matters is dependent on the resources.”
On the demand to halt exports, the bench clarified that economic policies are not subject to simplified judicial review:
“Are we here to decide whether a commodity is to be exported, imported or should be hoarded or kept in godowns or released? These are the functions of the executive. These are economic policies. We cannot reflect upon all this in such a simplified manner.”
The court also dismissed the petitioner’s claim regarding the percentage of LPG users in India, stating he was unaware of the “vastness” of the country and the continued use of traditional fuels in remote areas. Regarding the High Court canteen, the bench noted that the issue had already been addressed by arranging a Piped Natural Gas (PNG) connection.
The court closed the petition, stating that the situation is “not unknown” and the government has already taken possible actions. While refusing to form a judicial committee, the court allowed the petitioner to file a formal representation with the concerned authorities. The bench directed that if such a representation is made, the authorities must attend to it and address the grievances.
