The scenario is similar in various State Capitals. In Kerala, the UDF Government virtually drags the Court into any major policy initiative - be it the Liquor Policy or Division of Wards in the Local Body Election or even in routine Corruption Cases.
This is cowardly as it sets a dangerous precedent. It is akin to allowing Auditors to manage a Company, which is just not on. The Judiciary's role is to ensure whether the laws are followed, and not to make laws or to even make suggestions in this regard.
While I am second to none with respect to my appreciation of the Indian Judiciary (despite rotten apples, the poorly paid Judges do a tremendous job mostly), we need to be objective.
There have been far too many instances of over reach by the Judiciary. The trigger to this article is a directive by the Allahabad HC that the children of all Government Servants and Policy Makers should study only in Government School. This, the Judge feels, will make the Officials and Lawmakers more sensitive to the needs of Public Schools. It is no ones case that Government Schools are neglected and the students who are from the under privileged section of the society suffer a lot. But the Judge should have known that his Activism Judgment, while scoring high in dramatics, will not stand the test of law even in a Law School mock court.
We have seen the Court make caustic comments about the lack of progress in the Ganga Cleaning Project, or in the running of Railways or even the Government. But have we ever heard the Honourable Judges make one critical comment against themselves or the Judiciary? Our Judiciary's inefficiency in completing cases in a reasonable time frame is the biggest hurdle that stands in the way of the Country achieving greater heights. In today's scenario anyone with money or political backing can break laws with impunity knowing fully well that punishment, if it is handed out at all, is down the road 20-30 years down the line. This is with respect to Criminal Cases. Forget about Civil Cases. If I file a case for breach of Agreement, I cannot hope to get a verdict either way in my life time or next. The Judiciary, that makes such a hue and cry over the inefficiencies in others, is studiously silent when it comes to reforming itself.
I can site a few instances to demonstrate my point. It would have been hilarious, were it not that it is so tragic.
Take the case of Yakub Memon. It is bad enough that the Judiciary took nearly 20 years to execute him. The case dragged on for years for no reason whatsoever. It took 6 years for the appeals to be disposed off (he was sentenced to death by the lower court in 2007 and was upheld by SC in 2013). The comedy started after the President refused to commute his death sentence. One would have thought that once SC upholds the verdict, and disposes of the Review petition the Court should say firmly that its role has ended. Clemency by President is the last option. But in India, it is a No. The SC again opened its door to hear whether Presidents decision was correct, whether its decision was correct. Then we saw the convict appealing to the State Governor for Clemency (as if he is above the President!), then again to the President and finally the comical scene of the CJ ordering a hearing at 2 am in the morning on another petition by so called 'eminent' lawyers. It must have assuaged the bloated ego of our SC Judges no end, but in the end all they did was to make the Judiciary look ridiculous.
We have another case of the blatantly anti national Teesta Setalvad's lawyer being given permission to break the hearing by a SC Judge to plead for her anticipatory bail over video conferencing and it being given on priority!!
The less said about convicts Lalu Prasad Yadav and Salman Khan roaming around free after all these years is a testament to the 'Efficiency' of our Judiciary. And what happened to the Coal Scam cases or the 2G Scandal which rocked the country 4 years ago?
We saw the SC turning a blind eye to the blatant misuse of power and wealth accumulation by one of its on Chief Justice. It refused to even look into the case.
Finally, we have a stranger situation. The Supreme Court is hearing a Case where it is the aggrieved party!!. I am talking about National Judicial Appointment Commission Act case. This is a fight between the Government and the Supreme Court, where the SC is apparently the aggrieved party (by SC means SC judges). By any logic, this should not be heard by the SC, as there is a clear Conflict of Interest. It should have been heard by an impartial Third Party.
But who will bell the cat?
Let the Honourable Judges not forget the famous word play of Mark Antony and how he used the word Honourable to rouse the crowd.
| Let us not hope what befell Brutus and Cassius after Antony's 'Honourable Men' usage, doesn't fall on our Judges |
|
