Contribution of apex court overwhelming, say top jurists A strong judiciary may sometimes be a thorn in the flesh of the government or the political class, but in the Indian context, it has - barring a short dark stint during emergency - acted as pillar of the Indian state which celebrated its 67 Independence Day Thursday, eminent jurists say. Despite lackluster governance, a not-so-effective and responsive administrative apparatus and a parliament that sees more disruptions than deliberations, if the country still has a flourishing democracy then, to a large extent, the credit goes to the Supreme Court according to eminent jurist Fali Nariman. “The contribution of the apex court has not only been significant, it has been almost overwhelming,” he said. “It has been a movement forward with its ups and downs. The court faced testing times during the emergency,” said another eminent jurist P P Rao. In its journey to dispense justice, the Supreme Court took many innovative decisions. For the vast section of the populace that lives more in the denial of the basic necessities of life and for whom fundamental rights and the right to a decent life is not even a dream, the Supreme Court, way back in mid-1970s gave the gift of the PIL (public interest litigation), which has been employed by several public spirited individuals and non-governmental organisations to secure the rights guaranteed under the constitution. “The very concept of PIL is an innovation of justices in 1970s and 1980s,” Nariman said, adding: “It has enabled a vast array of injustices to be remedied in public interest even though the applicants for relief had no locus standi to question such injustices.” Another pivotal contribution of the Supreme Court is its expanding the scope of Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life) which now puts under the scanner the government’s functioning in every sphere of life. Besides the PIL, Nariman said that the Supreme Court has “expanded the applicability of article 14 and article 21 of the constitution. Since the right to life under article 21 has been interpreted to mean not merely living but a good and healthy life, this has enabled the court to give all manner of directions to central and state governments to secure a wide body of citizens a better social and economic life than they could have achieved without court’s intervention.” With a baggage of over 50,000 pending cases, including a number of matters required to be heard by the constitution bench pending for years, does it not reflect unfavourably on the apex court? Absence of a backlog would be the ideal situation which everyone would like to see, but another eminent jurist, C A Sundaram, said: “The problem of pendency is endemic to our judicial system, which has to merge on one hand the need of a free, fair and full hearing and on the other hand the combined effect of increasing litigation. Then, there is the paucity of judges and lack of sufficient increase in the judicial dispensation mechanism’s infrastructure.” “Even so far as disposal of cases goes, the Supreme Court is as effective as is possible in the disposing of cases while at the same time ensuring that cases before it receive serious consideration that they deserve at the hands of the final court,” Sundaram added. Admitting that top court has not been able to deliver speedy justice, P P Rao put the blame at the doorstep of poor governance or lack of it.
Posted on: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:32:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015