Judicial Quandary

I wonder what it would be like if people filed petitions in the US Supreme Court on the size of Christmas trees or the number of candles to be lighted. It would be even more specific if they demanded a limit on the thickness and length of the candles. The number of PILs in the Indian SC keeps dramatically going up. Almost every single day, or at least week, the SC seems to be ruling on some PIL or the other. A number of these PILs pertain to restricting Hindu festivals, customs and celebrations. Some of these don’t even need to be entertained by the judges. Here is what a former HC judge had to say:

“There are always two sides to a coin. There will be people who will try and exploit [PILs], whether courts allows themselves to be misused... that is where the wisdom of the courts lie”. – Former Delhi HC Judge, Justice RS Sodhi

On October 27 Arun Jaitley, in an interview with Arnab Goswami of Republic TV, was remarkably candid in a direct criticism of the courts and judges:

 

The admission of certain PILs and the rulings thereon have become a serious concern to many, especially those on Hinduism and Hindu practices. Recently, some moron even went to Madras HC over the movie “Mersal” containing some inaccuracies about GST or taxes on liquor and medical treatments. I really don’t understand why such a frivolous petition should even be admitted by a HC, let alone be ruled on. It should have been summarily dismissed as frivolous. But the Madras HC ruled as under:

The irony in HC’s ruling seems totally lost on our judges who are very touchy when it comes to their own domain. Ever been to a court? Especially to a trial court? This is how courts are shown in Indian movies:

 

Nowhere will you find trial courts so neat and tidy. It is even frivolous to find a defendant and a witness being allowed to argue with each other during proceedings. It is unlikely that you will find two witness boxes in most trial courts. Indian movies are known to portray courts in a most idiotic manner and it goes without saying that it is pure fiction and that the producers only dramatize their imagination. And since “Mersal” was mere fiction and imagination the HC ruled on it. But, when it came to another movie, Jolly LLB, the HC took objection to the court being shown in a bad light:

 

Not only did the Bombay HC take objection to the court being portrayed badly, it even ordered some scenes to be deleted. Why? Was Jolly not as much fiction and imagination as “Mersal” is? And if “Mersal” has the license to FoE and imaginative work why does “Jolly” not have the same license to portray courts and judges as they want in a “fictional” movie? Such contradictions and hypocrisies have come to infest our courts. Almost every movie, every issue now runs to courts with some silly PIL and the courts, deprived of precious time already, seem to entertain them too. This is causing serious concern among citizens. And these contradictions are now being widely “trolled” on SM as they would be anywhere in the world:

 

Let’s look another contradiction. In December 2016 the SC ruled that the national anthem should be played in movie halls and people must stand for it. The practice was discontinued long ago and while it was okay in the early days after Independence, the anthem in movie halls made no sense at all. People don’t go to movies for a function or a national parade. They just go for entertainment. And then, in October 2017, the SC suddenly decided the anthem in movie halls should be optional and the Centre should make a decision on it. That’s why courts are increasingly seen as playing the role of elected govts when it is totally unnecessary. These are the outcomes of frivolous PILs on issues on which the SC should just recommend suitable action to the concerned govt rather than issuing diktats. What did this do? On many TV debates it only brought out Mullahs and Commies who are vehemently against respecting the national anthem.

Many decades after WWII, organisations, courts and investigators still hunted for Nazi war criminals. Many were indeed hunted down. A company like BMW that exploited Jewish “slave labourers” without payment was made to compensate many years later. Most of the victims were dead. Those living were compensated. It is not mere compensation, it is also a question of restoring honour to those dead. That’s what being human is all about. Kashmiri Pandits have been murdered, uprooted from their homes for decades and no govt seems to want to help them or bring them justice. So, what did the KPs do? They went to the SC to seek justice but the court promptly sent them off:

Many of the murderers of KPs, many of the known criminals are still walking around. The KPs deserve not just justice but a return to their homes. I wonder who is going to stand for them. The last temple of justice has closed their doors on them. The SC claims it protects citizens from injustices. After this shutting out of KPs, I am confident even the Central and State govts will conveniently forget them. This is not justice, this is a serious war-crime against an entire community of people. This, even when the older cases of 1984 killing of Sikhs are still in courts. There is another case where army men were framed and is famous as the “Samba Spy Case”. Even army-men know this is a fake, trumped-up case. The ISRO spy case was also used to tar many scientists, including Nambi Narayanan. It is commonly believed this was done by enemies of India to sabotage the Cryogenics technology. Men and women who have served the nation only demand they live their life with honour if they are innocent. Even former Governor Kaushal Swaraj had tweeted these cases was a farce:

Nothing stops the SC from taking suo-moto cognisance and reopening these cases to restore justice and honour to the innocent. Last February, the SC agreed to look into the ISRO spying case. The Samba spy case merits the same relook. Even if the SC has made the final ruling in these cases earlier, the appellants deserve another hearing, if the SC judges can wake up midnight to hear Yakub Memon. Instead, NGOs, vested interests and even anti-nationals have been flooding the courts with frivolous PILs.

Humans are known to be adventurous risk-takers. They climb mountain peaks, trek dangerous jungles for discoveries, conquer space, travel to the north or south pole and even the limbless run Olympic races. So why does the SC have to rule on social practices like Dahi Handi or Jallikattu? All it needs to do is recommend to concerned govts to ensure they make adequate laws to protect humans and animals involved. Dictating height of Dahi Handi or banning Jallikattu is really not a solution. The Diwali cracker-ban in NCR appears to have made no real change in pollution either:

 

The problem with crackers and pollution can be stopped at the manufacturing level. The emissions and decibel levels need to be stipulated for the manufacturers not to the retailers and users. Hindus are united only by festivals, traditions and celebrations. There is no need to constantly impinge on this by any authority. A panel created by SC reported that Bhaang or other offerings are not the reasons for shrinking of the Shivling at the Ujjain temple. Yet, the SC has ruled on the Panchamrit or offerings to be made at the temple. These Shivlings across India have been around for thousands of years and weathered everything. While there is no harm in regulating the frenzied offerings at the temple, the courts intervening in this leads to permanent grievance in the hearts of Hindus. They feel their Rights are being restricted one by one and systematically too. This is best left to the temple management/trust.

Maybe the whole country needs reforms. Maybe all religions need reforms. But only the Hindus seem to be asked to change or alter their practices. Even courts too need reforms but are reluctant and the judges seem protective and adverse to change. Arun Jaitley, naturally, called it the “tyranny of the unelected” when the court over-ruled a Constitutional amendment which is Parliament’s supreme privilege and authority:

 

It has now almost become a question of “who will monitor the monitors”. A Constitutional amendment by Parliament after due process being over-ruled now means there is no authority or control over the Supreme Court whatsoever. This is not the kind of imbalance a democracy should desire. The same SC didn’t overturn the Constitutional amendment in the Shah Bano case which was executed mainly to negate the SC judgement. From Panchamrit to redeployment of security forces the SC is more or less running the Executive. In the case of security forces, the Bengal govt had gone to the HC against redeployment of forces from Darjeeling. The SC should have simply overturned the HC ruling instead of again dictating how many troops to redeploy. Central forces are subject to deployment by the GOI and the Cabinet and not the courts to really decide:

Other than hearing appeals against lower court judgements, Courts are supposed to stand for people against tyranny of any govt or force. In none of the cases mentioned above were people subjected to any kind of tyranny by GOI or any specific govt. On the contrary, when really tested, the SC did not stand up for freedoms and justice and a much reputed and respected SC judge, the late CJI PN Bhagwati apologised for not doing so:

Players cannot appoint umpires. Umpires cannot appoint umpires. Judges too should not be appointing themselves through their own body. The Constitution does not provide for a Collegium. Therefore, this does require a serious review and remedy. Until this is done we will continue to see a conflict between Judiciary and Executive, if not openly, and the public subjected to a judicial quandary. 

 www.educatingforward.com