New Delhi,  The Supreme Court on Wednesday, while upholding the One Rank-One Pension (OROP) scheme for armed forces personnel, observed that increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs.

However, it added that this does not mean the court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights.

A bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said: "An increased reliance on judges to solve matters of pure policy diminishes the role of other political organs in resolving contested issues of social and political policy, which require a democratic dialogue."

The bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath, added: "This is not to say that this Court will shy away from setting aside policies that impinge on constitutional rights. Rather it is to provide a clear-eyed role of the function that a court serves in a democracy."

Justice Chandrachud, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said: "We must remember that adjudication cannot serve as a substitute for policy. Lon Fuller described public policy issues that come up in adjudication as 'polycentric problems', that is, they raise questions that have a multiplicity of variable and interlocking factors, decisions on each one of which presupposes a decision on all others."

He added that such matters, according to Fuller, are more suitably addressed by elected representatives since they involve negotiations, trade-offs and a consensus-driven decision-making process.

"Most questions of policy involve complex considerations of not only technical and economic factors but also require balancing competing interests for which democratic reconciliation rather than adjudication is the best remedy," said Justice Chandrachud.

The bench noted that salaries and pensions account for nearly 63 per cent of the total defence budget estimates for 2020-2021. "In making policy choices, the Union Government is entitled to take into account priorities towards modernisation of the armed forces and to modulate the grant of financial benefits so as to sub-serve and balance distinct priorities," it added.

The top court said the policy choices which have been made by the Centre must also be understood in the context that estimated budget allocation for defence pensions is Rs 1,33,825 crore representing 28.39 per cent of the total defence budget estimate of Rs 4,71,378 crore for 2020-2021.

"The manner in which and the period over which revisions should take place of pensions, salaries and other financial benefits is a pure question of policy. The decision of the Central government to revise the pension every five years cannot be held to violate the precepts underlying Article 14," added the bench.

The top court's judgment came on a plea filed by the Ex-servicemen Association seeking implementation of OROP, as recommended by the Bhagat Singh Koshyari Committee with an automatic annual revision. The plea had challenged the current policy of periodic review once in five years.

The petitioners contend that in the course of implementation, the principle of OROP has been replaced by 'one rank multiple pensions' for persons with the same length of service. They argued that the initial definition of OROP was altered by the Central government and, instead of an automatic revision of the rates of pension, the revision now would take place at periodic intervals.