CIHS – Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies

Date/Time:

Unsettling Judicial Overreach

K.A.Badarinath Open debate on legalizing ‘same sex’ marriages, stakeholders consultation must precede Parliament enacting a law. Courts have no role This is not the first time that courts have gone on an overdrive with judicial over-reach. Supreme Court’s stand on legalizing same-sex marriages is yet another example of its bid to trample on powers of the executive and Parliament. While demarcation of powers between the three is clear, repeated bid by the courts to stamp on someone else’s toe is making things worse for an already chaotic but working democratic setup that India has evolved over 75-years. During the ‘Amrit kal’, the intervening 25-years to the centennial, this transgression by judiciary has to change in New India. At one point of time, Honourable Lordships were trigger happy to sit on judgment as to whether a girl or woman can avail menstrual leave not leaving it to states, governments or stakeholders to decide. Supreme Court made attempts to assign itself the task of appointing three commissioners to Election Commission of India which is crass. When the Covid-19 pandemic was at its peak in 2021, Supreme Court and High Courts expected Central Government and states to report on ‘virtual day to day basis,’ as to who were getting vaccinated and who were not. Latest is Supreme Court taking upon itself to decide on legality of same-sex marriages. Should this key socio, cultural, religious, dharmic and economic issue be left to courts? Erroneously, Article 21 and 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India were invoked citing right to expression and dignity of those that favoured same sex marriages. There seems to have been temporary loss of memory that application of Section 377, Indian Penal Code was turned unconstitutional. And, thereby dignity and expression of homosexuality or lesbianism was restored giving men and women their right to sexual preferences in relationships. These relationships have been decriminalized My Lordships! Should courts be allowed to decide how one lives or marries? Do courts have the mandate to tamper with the institution of marriages in India that is not limited to just two individuals of opposite sex but the families and society at large? On the other hand, power to legislate on a delicate issue like marriages is definitely in the domain of the Government, Parliament, elected policymakers and definitely not with judges that do not support openness in their own appointments. Otherwise, there’s no reason why National Judicial Appointments Commission bill of 2014 was vetoed. Incidentally, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has rightly pointed out that marriages and related rituals were very sacred and sacrosanct in Hindu way of life that largely define and provides distinct face to Indian society. There’s awareness among stakeholders on deep divide and complexity in accepting same-sex marriages. In majority countries globally, same-sex marriages have not been legalized even if such relationships have been. In fact, in Indian context decriminalizing the same sex relationships in 2018 was humane in approach. In this backdrop, referring the same-sex marriages to a five-judge bench invoking Section 145 (3) of Indian Constitution needs closer scrutiny by stakeholders. Instead of making desperate attempts to hog headlines day after day, courts and honourable judicial officers should put their own house in order. Administering justice to common man or woman should take primacy in the way our judicial institutions function and not the urge to hog headlines next day, come what may. Reform in judicial system should be top priority of this elite club of judges that seek to run affairs of the country from precincts of their chambers. Phasing out adhocism, bringing in accountability, removing corruption and lobbying in courts that normally goes unreported or under-reported should be primacy of the Chief Justice of India who leads a pack of wise men and women. Administering justice in time is an issue that’s time and again flagged by several commentators including some top judicial minds. Over 4.9 crore out of five crore cases are pending in district courts across the country without respite to the commoners as per figures quoted by law minister Kiran Rijiju. As per the National Judicial Data Grid, over 93 crore cases were pending in subordinate courts, 49 lakh cases in High Courts and 57,987 cases in Supreme Court as of December 2022. Instead of restricting itself to constitutional issues, Supreme Court turning itself into regular court of appeals may be just one reason.  More than that, the top court unwilling to play its role in reforming the system is the second reason. Thirdly, indulging in issues that may or may not be of its concern like the ‘same sex marriages’ could be yet another possible reason. During ten years of policy paralysis of United Progressive Alliance regime of 2004-13, judicial overreach got into high gear. Fledgling era of coalition governments and dirty political bickering etched out ground for judicial mis-adventurism by extension too. Highest judicial officers led by his Lordship Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud should take the first step towards making courts and related institutions relevant to 1.4 billion Indian people. My Lordships give judicial system a chance!   (Author is Director & Chief Executive of New Delhi based non-partisan think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies. Views expressed are personal)

Read More

Spare us, My Lord!

Judicial reforms that entail clearing large pendency and delivering justice to the last man standing in antyodaya spirit should be the focus. K.A.Badarinath Is holding a view opposed to Justice J.B.Pardiwala an equivalent of media trial by default? Do live wire TV debates or instant digital media scrutiny of honourable judges’ comments translate to holding ‘kangaroo courts’? Well, these are larger questions of interpretation especially after Chief Justice of India N V Ramana took TV and digital media to task while delivering a lecture at Ranchi. After the ‘Kangaroo courts’ comment of Justice Ramana, key point to ponder was if media in India overstepped their mandate and hurt the essentials of democracy? If yes, then what are the corrective measures that should be put in place as part of course correction? Or, should our judges and judiciary reconcile and adapt to ‘real time media coverage and scrutiny’ of controversial issues that engulf our society? Well, the jury is out. Is instant and incessant analyses of issues by hyper-active media same as holding Kangaroo courts?  A quick search on the internet said that Kangaroo courts were ‘unofficial courts of law’ or punishment by hanging without due process. Ochlocracy, lynch laws or criminal syndicalism are other thesaurus synonyms for Kangaroo courts. A loose definition of criminal syndicalism was doctrine of criminal acts to advocate crime, sabotage, violence and other unlawful methods of terrorism. Has Indian media been so irresponsible that it functioned like Kangaroo courts? Well, as a practicing newsman for over 35-years, it’s an unpardonable insult to call our body of professional work as Kangaroo court delivering judgment without due process. Media in India’s thriving and chaotic democracy pre and post-independence has played a significant role in upholding societal values, subjecting every institution to scrutiny including the judiciary. Most scams were unearthed by very serious and alert news professionals and media houses risking their lives. Otherwise, the Rs 133 crore urea scam involving the then Prime Minister would not have hogged headlines.  Corrupt Bofors deal that seriously compromised India’s security apparatus would not have got exposed. Investigation into allocation of spectrum would not have happened. Serious irregularities in purchase of fodder would not have seen light. ‘Sweet heart deals’ owing to politicians and bankers nexus were uncovered only due to hard work of media organizations and enterprising serious journalists My Lord! Media and journalists were the biggest victims of anti-democratic internal emergency imposed on June 26, 1975 following the ouster of Indira Gandhi owing to electoral malpractices through an Allahabad High Court verdict. Media role in independence movement can never be ignored nor needs amplification. Majority media houses – print, electronic, digital and social – have largely been serious players with a purpose as pursuit of objective journalism is too sacred for hard core newsmen and women. Like majority of judges and judiciary is serious about its profession of delivering flawless justice, serious media players are driven by commitment and conviction. Both, media and judiciary will have to co-exist with equanimity as equitable stakeholders in Indian democracy along with the executive and legislature. Respecting each other’s work and professional ethics and operating in their space recognizing the inter-linkages is something that needs to evolve organically and without a blemish. Stepping on each other’s toes or name calling may not be the best solution My Lord! One would tend to agree with Union Information and Broadcasting minister Anurag Singh Thakur that self-discipline and self-regulation should be the buzz words for meaningful media contribution to the narrative and conversations. Several reforms in media have become operative after the pre-British days’ First Press Regulation of 1799. Press and Regulation of Books Act of 1867 coupled with various provisions under Indian Penal Code of 1860 paved the way for an organized media in this country. Post-independence, there have been several changes to press laws. Newsmen and media have largely followed a particular path to strengthen Indian democratic traditions, objectivity and keep the discourse in public space intact. In this context, a clear distinction needs to be made between judicial activism, restraint and overreach. This may not be limited to the relationship between judiciary, executive and the legislature. Free and responsible media is also an important organ that makes the circle complete. Justice S.N.Aggarwal recently pointed to citizens overlooking the fallibility of judicial officers considering the judge as the supreme, the primus inter pares that gets to have the last word especially on issues of public importance. Scrutiny, restraint and self-regulation are what the doctor prescribed for each of the democratic organs and not just the media or journalists. For instance, should Justice J.B.Pardiwala not have given enough thought before making a scathing remark on Nupur Sharma’s utterances of Prophet Mohammad?  Do we expect citizens and readers to endorse Madras High Court calling Election Commission of India as an institution of ‘murderers’ holding it solely responsible for second wave of Covid 19 spread? Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah had rightly taken the line that judges need to be cautious about making off the cuff remarks that may be subject to interpretation and scrutiny. The learned judges have carefully noted that hysteria and chaos should not be result of even unintended comments made by the Lordships. Reforms in judiciary should be prima donna focus of the judiciary rather than satiating to the urge for hitting headlines day after day on each and every issue. These judicial reforms will have to lead to delivery of justice to last man standing in the queue of hundreds of thousands waiting to be heard. Introspection into workings of the judiciary should pre-occupy our top judicial minds rather than resorting to flippant comments on the media or transgressing into domains of legislature or executive. Ending huge pendency of cases at each level beginning with mofussil courts should become the priority. Setting its own house in order with reforming its processes from filing of a petition to delivery of justice must be pursued on mission mode. (This article is

Read More