Equivocally I too agree that Judiciary should play an important role in a country and its one of the pillars of democracy. But it doesn’t mean that judges are empowered to comment or give judgments beyond what they are expected to do.
For instance take Ayodhya verdict by Allahabad High-Court. The court/judges should only act only on the evidences and facts. But in this case judges have taken the faith of the people into consideration rather than evidence. Maybe first time in history of Indian judicial system it had happened. Almost all judges have agreed that below the centre dome of Babri masjid is where Lord Ram was born. How can judges be so sure about it without any evidence? How can they conclude only with the belief of the Hindus?
If it’s just an entitlement issue of the disputed land, only Sunni waqf-board has some documents to claim that land. How that land can be divided based on faith?
Similarly the same Apex court has asked to consider some alternate route for Sethu Samutharam project even after NASA confirmed that the chain of small islets connecting India and Sri Lanka are real geographical features that have been mapped for centuries. Chains of islands form a variety of natural geological processes and their occurrence is not evidence of any human activity.
In this year Supreme-Court asked the Central Government to distribute free food grains to families below the poverty line (BPL). For which Manmohan Singh categorically said, "I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court should not go into the realm of policy formulation"
I am wondering how court can decide on government policies? Maybe court can question why those food grains have not been stored safely. How it can ask the government to distribute it freely.
Think of the recent 2G scam issue. How judges can decide what should be the policy of 2G auction? If they say first-come-first-serve or selling the spectrum at the 2001 rate in 2007 is wrong, how they can decide it? All they can probe is if all the process has been followed or not for the spectrum allocation. I don’t know how they can really question the 'intent' of any decision of the government.
Recently it questioned the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) chief PJ Thomas ‘Integrity’ and appointment. Anyone charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why can’t this apply to PJ Thomas? How it can question the government on his appointment? Does Supreme Court want to decide all appointments made by government?
If judiciary wants to cleanup the failures of government, it should first cleanup its own house.
After having overwhelming evidence against then Karnataka High-Court judge P D Dinakaran, they were not able to impeach him. All they were able to do is just transfer him as Chief-Justice of Sikkim high-court.
Only recently Justice Soumitra Sen got impeached for his corruption. Despite being indicted many times for corruption, the judge has comfortably managed to exploit the loopholes in the system. Excluding allowances and perks for fuel, attendants, house rent, phone and medical bills, Justice Sen's salary today stands at Rs. 80,000 per month. They also say that Sen has not done any work for the last four years but drawn full salary and perks. Is it a paid holiday for him? Why tax payer’s money was spent on him? Does it mean judges are above the law?
On contrary judges are worried about people in BPL.
Courts being too powerful and going out of their way to make statements and judgments are not good for democracy. After all it’s run by few individuals. They are not accountable for anyone. In democracy Parliament and Legislative-Assemblies are the highest body of policy making. If it has been approved by parliament, I don’t think court should interfere in it. That too courts taking a decision based on faith is extremely dangerous.
If courts/judges are running this country, it means its being run by few un-accountable individuals which is NOT good for democracy.
Completely agree. To add to your points,
ReplyDeleteI feel the court should not take decisions based on Law and order related problems that the judgement could cause (like in the case of Ayodhya verdict)
It is for the Government to bother about it. The courts should work only and only on facts but nothing else.
The problem is that off late we see the SC taking a moral stance. In all dignity, it should take a factual stand and nothing but that.
As far as cleaning up the house is concerned, our whole country is rotten. You can pick one rotten apple from a bunch if the whole bunch is rotten, you throw it away. But there is no other country in the world to accommodate such a large scale man-made and literally manual bombs.
But looking at it from a non-judgemental stand point. Meaning: Not inferring and judging somebody (like the SC in your case here):
Isn't it good that in a holy country like ours, there is atleast some-body which is posing some hard questions to the dynasty ruled democracy?
Since we dont have any other organization or body to audit the government on whether it is doing the right thing (morally and ethically also other than legally) I am all for this way of dealing with rot. Clean it whatever it takes. But does it really clean it??!
You raised a good point about moral stand. Yes, I agree with you. Courts are taking moral stands nowadays.
ReplyDeleteIn democracy only people are empowered to judge or held their representative accountable. It shouldn't be done by the judges/courts.
For example court can look into the CAG report and declare that policy decision had caused the exchequer a huge loss. But if the same court looks at the TRAI report it can say decision is correct. But looking at it in different view, assume government had taken such a policy decision keeping many factors into consideration like increasing number of subscriber base, reducing the cost of calls, adding more service-providers etc.., I don't know how all these can be proved in court?
This is more of corporate war which caused this loss.
There are few policy decisions which have been put on hold because of courts intervention.
I have an objection here for your viewpoint: "In democracy only people are empowered to judge or held their representative accountable. It shouldn't be done by the judges/courts."
ReplyDeleteOur politicians would not even lend an ear to what a common has to say. …forget about holding the politicians accountable. The only empowerment what our people have is to vote against the corrupt politicians... But we all know as to how fairly elections are fought and won in our country!!!
I am against court taking decisions on moral ground... but I prefer it to give out its observations and recommendations. If a court makes an observation... that would be in the print... even a common man would be informed of it… Don’t u think this as a way of empowering people???
i too agree apex-court opinions/suggestions are always good. but i am not quite happy if they question any policy decision. also i am not comfortable with their moral stand.
ReplyDeletethink of binayak sen case. how its justified to give him life imprisonment?