Governments will come and go. The games of politics and power will continue to be played, but institutions will continue to be the pillars of democracy. By criticising the judiciary, the Opposition is doing a great disservice to the nation.
The games of politics and power will continue to be played, but institutions will continue to be the pillars of democracy in the country. By criticising an institution as robust as the judiciary, the Opposition is doing a great disservice to the nation
Written by Hitesh Jain
Updated: January 26, 2023 07:35 IST
Lately, the Opposition in India has found itself in a difficult position. In an attempt to stay afloat, it has adopted a new strategy of casting aspersions not only on judicial institutions but also on judges and advocates, even court registries. While these allegations are often couched in the language of protecting “transparency”, behind them lie the desire to save face in the courts of justice after having failed in the people’s arena. The past two general elections show that the Opposition has failed to put forward a viable alternative to the present government. It has now undertaken the futile task of firing bullets at the Centre from the shoulders of the judiciary. The judiciary has, however, quelled every attempt to turn it into a pawn in the political slugfest. This refusal has led the Opposition to reiterate its longstanding allegation of the judiciary’s surrender to the government.
In addition to mindlessly blaming the institution, Opposition leaders and their aides have taken to filing frivolous petitions challenging key executive policies. This is despite the substantial precedence of the judiciary not sitting on judgment on the executive’s wisdom in policy-related matters. The judiciary has, at times, also clarified its position on the sacredness of the separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution. For instance, in the first week of January, in its verdict on the demonetisation case, the Supreme Court stated that executive decisions, such as those related to the economy, are not open to judicial review.
Several eminent lawyers, many of whom are also Opposition leaders, advanced the same argument about the separation of powers of the judiciary and executive before 2014. The true picture is, therefore, very different from what is being painted by the Opposition.
In fact, a stocktaking of the decisions of the courts in various matters over the past few years will reveal several instances where the judiciary’s interference was actually unwarranted. There has been judicial involvement in policies pertaining to the membership and the running of the Election Commission of India. The courts have intervened in the FIFA-All India Football Federation dispute and passed strictures on the allocation of resources under the government’s Covid-19 health policies. The “lakshman rekha”, marking the judiciary’s ambit of review, has been sometimes blurred to the point that it has seemed invisible.
The Centre is no stranger to the judiciary’s admonition, including on several of its cherished initiatives. One such example is the apex court’s 2015 verdict striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission. On the issue of Aadhaar, the current Chief Justice of India issued a scathing dissent. At the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court pulled up the government for its vaccination policy, the High Court of Bombay questioned the government over its supply of oxygen and the High Court of Madras and the High Court of Karnataka scrutinised the extent of the government’s preparedness for the second wave of the pandemic. If the judiciary had really submitted itself to the Centre, the then Chief Justice would have found it unthinkable to reprimand the government on an issue as sensitive as the Pegasus spyware. On issues of personal liberty, the judiciary continues to be a custodian of the Constitution by granting bail to Arnab Goswami as well as to Munawar Faruqui and Mohammed Zubair. The judiciary’s impartiality is evident from several of its decisions.
By constantly delivering judgments that are grounded in precedent, the judiciary has stood firm in discharging its constitutional duty. While politically “favourable” judgments are met with certificates of credibility and appreciative op-eds, verdicts that go against the Opposition’s viewpoints often face an angry barrage of tweets and continuous denunciation. It is important that the country’s premier institutions are not drawn into mud-slinging political games. The hallmark of an independent institution is evident from the ways in which it arrives at conclusions that are free from biases — and does not toe the line of individuals who are keen to run their own agendas.
Governments will come and go. The games of politics and power will continue to be played, but institutions will continue to be the pillars of democracy. By criticising the judiciary, the Opposition is doing a great disservice to the nation.
The writer is Managing Partner, Parinam Law Associates and vice president, BJP Mumbai Pradesh
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd