The Supreme Court of India held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised to question economic or fiscal reforms, unless such measures violate constitutional or statutory provisions. In Akola Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Zishan Hussain & Anr., the Court examined a challenge to the revision of property tax by the municipal corporation after a gap of 16 years. The Bombay High Court had quashed the revision on a PIL filed by a corporator. Setting aside that judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the PIL was not maintainable, as it reflected an individual grievance rather than any demonstrable public injury and was an attempt to bypass statutory remedies available under municipal law. On the scope of judicial review, the Court reiterated that courts must exercise restraint in matters of economic and fiscal policy, particularly taxation. Judicial review is confined to examining legality, procedure, or constitutional infirmity, and courts cannot substitute their views for those of elected bodies or policy experts. The Court noted that municipal bodies require financial autonomy to discharge public functions and are justified indeed duty-bound to revise taxes periodically. Consequently, the tax revision was upheld as lawful and reasonable.