Judiciary is one of the pillars of democratic credentials of our nation and is known for landmark judgements but recent judgements have put question marks over its impartiality.
This judicial activism began when access to courts was opened up to the poor, indigent and disadvantaged sections of the nation and their basic rights were enforced through what has now become the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Since NJAC judgement I have found judiciary trying to impose their view on the people’s view. NJAC was the best reform to fill the gaps in judicial appointments but judiciary was not ready for it. It’s simple, we will reform you but don’t dare to reform us and we will not reform us too. This is just laughable. Many CJI’s have themselves talked of non-transparent way of working of collegium system. Even former chief justice J.S. Verma had publicly raised misgivings on the working of the collegium system and had suggested a serious think. Even this did not let judiciary accept the reform. They tried to put the ball in political court to shift their burden of criticism and this, we have acknowledged the way judges are acting now a day.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the Bombay High Court order imposing height restrictions on human pyramids formed during the DahiHandi festivities in Mumbai, and banning youngsters below 18 years from participating.
On 14 January, 2016, the Supreme Court of India upheld its ban on the event of Jallikattu, leading to protests all over Tamil Nadu. So, now where is freedom of religion?
Or if Judiciary is really concerned about people on humanitarian and civil grounds then why didn’t they take Suo-moto initiative to stop children and others beating themselves with hunter on the occasion of Muharram which is most cruel form of tradition.
RSS members stopped to organise rallies that they plan in Tamil Nadu in October to celebrate Vijayadashmi, with the state’s high court saying they cannot march in the half pants that they have worn for nine decades. Now, judiciary will tell what people can wear or what they cannot wear in public? Wow!!!! Mockery of Freedom to wear!!!
Supreme court order on water release from Cauvery flowing in Karnataka to Tamil Nadu is without any ground reality check and is an example of abrupt decision. SC can never interfere in interstate river water disputes as per the constitutional provisions mentioned in article 262. River water tribunals needs to be setup for this purpose. SC also ordered to setup a central committee which is unconstitutional too. Later after objections, they cancelled the order. Why spreading your arms when you don’t have authority to do that??
These attitude shows that SC is today not bothered about justified decision making but considering it as supreme power in all spheres of life, which has actually undermined the other two pillars- Legislators and executives.
If Judiciary really wants to reform, then first reform yourself my lords. Change the collegium system and allow RTI for judges and courts too.
Note: I have just quoted some examples of judicial biased decisions. I am not putting my view on the respective examples through this blog.