Judicial 'overreach':
CJI steps in to remove confusion.
New Delhi, December 13
A Supreme Court Bench,
headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, today dispelled the impression
on judiciary’s “overreach” in the public interest litigation (PIL) cases,
gained in the wake of a judgement of a Division Bench this week that had
raised a controversy on the judicial “overactivism”.
“We are not bound by the
two-judge Bench (order),” the CJI sitting in a three-judge Bench with Justices
R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal said and even refused to look at the judgement
of Justices A.K. Mahtur and Markendey Katju when it was sought to be placed
on record by a counsel arguing a PIL on the plight of widows in Brindaban.
Though the CJI’s Bench
did not say anything further on the controversial judgement, the terse
one-line observation made by Justice Balakrishnan on it apparently sent
a message to the judiciary that it should not read much in the judgement
with several “harsh” observations made by Justices Mathur and Katju in
their verdict even questioning the orders of some of the larger Benches
of the apex court.
The two judges had also
questioned the validity of Delhi High Court’s orders in at least 15 PILs
relating to various important issues, in which authorities had not even
acted under the provisions of the law and the laid-down rules.
As a result of the judgement,
a Division Bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi earlier refused to
hear a pending PIL further on sex workers’ plight and the Delhi High Court
a petition on rehabilitation of beggars and action against a begging racket
in the city employing small children.
The CJI, while admitting
the PIL on Brindaban widows’ plight today, filed by NGO Environment and
Consumer Protection Foundation (ECPF), said any person moving PILs should
make a thorough research before approaching the court and not file them
merely based on media reports.
The petitioners should
go to the spot of happening, collect material and information personally,
the court said and questioned the foundation counsel about his information
on these points about the widows.
The counsel said the NGO
had written to the district authorities of the Uttar Pradesh government
on the plight of the widows after reports appeared in media about their
pathetic condition.
In the media reports the
number of widows living in different temple complexes was put at 25,000
but the district authorities admitted it to be around 3,000. They are paid
Rs 6 per day which is not sufficient for their survival and many of them
were very old and suffering from various ailments.
After the counsel furnished
details about their plight amid thorough grilling by the Bench, the apex
court admitted the petition and issued notices to the Centre and Uttar
Pradesh Government seeking their replies.
Judges cannot create
law, only enforce: SC
December 10, 2007. NEW
DELHI:
Judiciary has been under
attack from the executive and the legislature for “encroaching” upon their
sphere and Parliament in the just concluded session debated the issue in
detail, the Supreme Court in a path-breaking introspective verdict today
disapproved of over activism by the apex court itself and high courts,
saying they “cannot arrogate” to themselves the functions of the other
two organs of the government.
In the light of widespread
concern of country's political fraternity and a section of the media, being
in the mood of slef-introspection the Supreme Court on Monday scolded lower
courts saying that the judges should now their jurisdiction and should
not encroach on the legislative or executive domain.
In an unprecedented confession,
the Supreme Court has admitted that the judiciary has erred in the recent
past in usurping the powers of the executive. Cautioning against judicial
activism, it said that if the trend continued, politicians would step in
and clip the judiciary's wings.
"If the judiciary does
not exercise restraint and overstretches its limits, there is bound be
a reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will then step
in and curtail the power, or even the independence of the judiciary," said
an SC bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Markandey Katju.
In a 22-page judgment,
in which the SC overturned a trial court and the high court's ruling on
regularising certain employees of a private golf course, the two judges
devoted 15 pages to reiterate judicial norms which, in the main, underline
that judges as umpires are meant to uphold laws, not create them.
At least 15 other such
examples of judicial encroachments cited by the Bench were mainly from
the Delhi High Court, which included the recent order on the Delhi government’s
education policy relating to “pre-nursery” admissions for tiny tots, reservation
of 25 per cent free seats in private schools for poor students and poor
patients in private hospitals set up on public land, demolition of unauthorised
constructions, growing accidents and the regulation of city buses, use
of ambulances, speed-breakers, overcharging by auto-rickshaws, pollution
and begging.
The bench added that in
order to maintain the judiciary's independence, judges had to exercise
restraint and honour the separation of powers among the three wings of
governance, as mandated by the Constitution.
"The constitutional tradeoff
for independence is that judges must restrain themselves from areas reserved
for the other separate branches (executive and legislature)," said the
bench.
The SC listed instances
where the judiciary had strayed into the executive's domain. These cases
included: nursery admissions in Delhi; legality of constructions, identifying
buildings to be demolished in Delhi; overcharging by Delhi autorickshaws;
growing road accidents and enhancing fines; nature of buses for public
transport; air-pollution; free beds in hospitals on public land; world-class
ambulance services; world-class burns ward.
The judgment came on December
6, immediately after MPs vociferously demanded accountability and probity
among judges during a debate in Parliament's winter session on the passage
of a law putting a year's moratorium on the court-mandated sealing and
demolition drive against illegal structures in Delhi.
|
Therefore, the judiciary
should confine itself to its proper sphere as defined under the Constitution
and various statutes, realising that in a democracy many matters and controversies
“are best resolved in non-judicial setting,” the Bench concluded. It said
the judiciary as the protector of the Constitution of course “has the power
to intervene but in exceptional circumstances when situation forcefully
demands it in the interest of the nation.” |
The observations came in
a 22-page verdict with the Court's setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High
Court order directing creation of posts of tractor driver to accommodate
two gardeners employed on daily wages at a golf club run by Haryana Tourism
Corporation and were asked to perform the duties of tractor drivers.
Comments
From Rajesh Chopra
|