- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31144-DB WP No. 5838 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5838 OF 2024 (EDN-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI GIRISH BHARADWAJ S/O SRI DATTATREYA H N AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.11, ASTHITHVA RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020 2. SRI ANANDA MURTHY R S/O RECHANNA S AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OFFICE AT B-001, B BLOCK ELEGANT ESPLANDE APARTMENT RANGASWAMAPPA ROAD MYLSANDRA RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 59. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31144-DB WP No. 5838 of 2024 AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF EDUCATION 122-C, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2ND GATE, 6TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN H.,DSGI FOR R-1 & SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-2 TO 5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31144-DB WP No. 5838 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER, DIRECTION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11/10/2023 IN NO.ED/166/UNE/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A) AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY, 2020 IN TERMS OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 07/08/2021 IN NO.ED 260 UNE 2019 (PART-1), BENGALURU (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C) & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition styled as a Public Interest litigation, inter alia praying that directions be issued to the respondents to continue with the implementation of the National Education Policy, 2020 [hereafter referred to as 'the NEP'] in terms of the Government Order dated 07.08.2021. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31144-DB WP No. 5838 of 2024 2. In the alternative, the petitioners pray that directions be issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 5 to include NEP in the terms of reference of the order dated 11.10.2023 issued by respondent No.4, for consideration by the Commission constituted for framing the State Education policy. 3. The NEP was introduced by the Central Government in the year 2020. The Government of the State of Karnataka had constituted an Expert Committee for implementation of the policy, from the academic year 2021-22. 4. Thereafter, the State Government had passed an order for constitution of the Committee to draft the State Education Policy. It is the petitioners' case that the State Government should be compelled to adopt the NEP, and not undertake the exercise of framing a separate policy. 5. As noted above, in the alternative, the petitioners seek directions to the effect that the NEP, 2020 be also considered by the said Committee. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31144-DB WP No. 5838 of 2024 6. We are unable to accept that intervention is required in matters of policy. It is trite law that the courts will not intervene in matters relating to policy. 7. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India: (2013) 6 SCC 616 the Supreme Court had observed as under: "12. We find that the impugned Policy is only an enabling policy and the State Governments/Union Territories are free to take their own decisions in regard to implementation of the policy in keeping with local conditions. It is, thus, left to the choice of the State Governments/Union Territories whether or not to implement the Policy to allow FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading. 13. The views on the efficacy of a government policy and the objectives such policy seeks to achieve may differ. The counter-view(s) may have some merit but under our Constitution, the executive has been accorded primary responsibility for the formulation of governmental policy. The executive function comprises both the determination of policy as well as carrying it into execution. If the Government of the day after due reflection, consideration and deliberation feels that by allowing FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading, the country's economy will grow and it will facilitate better access to the market for the producer of goods and enhance the employment potential, then in our view, it is not open for the Court to go into the merits and demerits of such policy. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31144-DB WP No. 5838 of 2024 14. On matters affecting policy, this Court does not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. The impugned Policy that allows FDI up to 51% in multi-brand retail trading does not appear to suffer from any of these vices." 8. In the present case, a committee has been constituted to draft the education policy. No order interdicting drafting of a policy can be passed. Unless the petitioners establish that their fundamental rights or statutory rights are violated, it would not be apposite to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30