Attention – Due To Allegations of Plagiarism, This Article Is Highly Suspect

A day after the Lok Sabha decided to discuss the issue of “intervention of judiciary” into the functioning of the legislature, both parties called for increased tolerance, the need for striking a delicate balance and the importance of all organs of the state working in harmony rather than discord.

“The function of the judiciary of course is not to set itself in opposition to the policy and politics of the majority rule, but to test the validity and constitutionality of the actions of State,” said Justice A S Anand, the former Chief Justice of India, advised courts to avoid overstepping their limits and showing “proper restraint” while exercising their power of judicial review.

There is no doubting that the judiciary has of late played a stellar role in delivering justice. High profile cases including the Soren sentencing, the Sidhu conviction and the Mattoo verdict has put a renewed sense of faith in the judicial process, a faith that had fast eroded in the preceding decade thanks to a lackluster approach of judges to deliver justice. But the renewed vigor of the courts has brought with it a direct confrontation with politicians who sometimes suspect that they are being made the convenient scapegoats for the judiciary to score some brownie pants. Politics in India is also largely sentiment driven. So when sealings of commercial properties takes place in the national capital, the politicians fear that the prevailing sentiment would dent their vote banks. This, when the decision to start the sealing was taken by the court rather than the legislature. Concurrently, the political class has also used the judiciary to provide it some much-needed cover. The quota debate and the inclusion of the creamy layer, sensitive decisions that require deft political handling, were conveniently put in the judiciary’s court and any outcome would be passed of as the ruling of the courts, which is sacrosanct. This hypocrisy on part of the political class must end if they wish to regain any public support. The courts too must realize that a proactive court is hailed by one and all. Activism, though, will only rub the executive and the legislature the wrong way. The bottom line remains that both sides must respect each other’s domain and work in strengthening both institutions. A failure to do so will only spell trouble for Indian democracy and in extreme circumstances may cause either to blink or take harsh decisions on the other which will not augur well for what the Indian Constitution stands for.

Be Sociable, Share!