(iii) In complex economic matters, every decision is necessarily empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call ‘trial and error method and therefore, its validity cannot be tested on any rigid ‘a priori’ considerations or on the application of any strait-jacket formula. The Court must while adjudicating the constitutional validity of an executive decision relating to economic matters grant a certain measure of freedom or ‘play in the joints’ to the executive. The same is required to be given unless such decision is patently, arbitrary, discriminatory and malafide. [ State of M.P. and others v. Nandlal Jaiswal and others, (1986) 4 SCC 566, State of Punjab v. Yogender Sharma Onkar Rai & Co. and others, (1996) 6 SCC 173] Natural Resources Allocation (supra), para- 139, 141, 142; Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam (supra), Air India Ltd. (supra), Manohar Lal Sharma v. Narendra Damodardas Modi and others, (2019) 3 SCC 25; Kuldeep Singh v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2006) 5 SCC 702, Para-25] (iv) Unless the decision is ex-facie contrary to a Statute or against public policy, Constitutional Court would exercise judicial restraint . [Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2007) 2 SCC 588 ] [ Also 5 M & T Consultants, Secunderabad v. S.Y. Yawab and another, (2003) 8 SCC 100, Para-16, Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 SCC 679, para 35]
