|
|
«« Back |
|
Tarry, My Lords
Tarry, My Lords
Author: Editorial
Publication: Daily Pioneer
Date: September 15, 2003
The lure of instant publicity and
stardom is turning out to be dangerously infectious. The virus now appears
to have spread to the judiciary. There has been an alarming increase in
the frequency with which various courts of law are making pronouncements
on politicians and the political system. What is particularly disturbing
is the casual manner in which our learned judges are issuing quit prescriptions
to lawfully constituted Governments. It is possible that the Chief Justice
of India, Mr VN Khare, suggested that the Gujarat Government should quit
if it could not prosecute the guilty in the Best Bakery case, in a fit
of anger. But such comments are not expected from a person of his standing,
especially considering the august office he holds. Obviously realising
that the only way a democratically elected Government in a State can be
removed is through its dismissal by the President, Justice Khare was careful
to underline, "I am not saying Article 356". That, however, does not dilute
the impact of his observation. Further, the question arises whether it
is for the apex court of the country to refer to "Rajdharma", a decidedly
political notion which Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had appropriately
invoked in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots. By specifically referring
to it, was the Chief Justice seeking to convey a political message? If
that were indeed his intention, it must be contended with due humility
that the Supreme Court exceeded its domain. A mature democracy rests on
four pillars: The legislature, the executive, the judiciary and the media.
Any distortion in the apportioning of roles between them can lead to severe
imbalance threatening the system itself. As the constitutionally ordained
arbiter between functionaries in a democratic order, the judiciary has
to be exceptionally mindful that the boat is not rocked. Friday's startling
observations by the Supreme Court's three-judge bench may, unintendedly
perhaps, serve to create some doubts on that score.
This is not to suggest that the
Gujarat Government should not have been pulled up for the apparently shoddy
appeal it has filed in the Best Bakery case. The Supreme Court is entirely
within its rights to demand the rectification of legal infirmities, if
any, in the State Government's plea. Of course, the Gujarat Government
could credibly argue that it genuinely had no time to prepare a strong
enough appeal against the lower court verdict that acquitted all the accused
allegedly involved in the killing of 14 persons at the Bakery. For, had
it not been for the self-confessed perjurer, one Ms Zaheera Sheikh, promoted
by a bunch of self-seeking, Mumbai- based publicists, the State Government
would not have seen any particular reason to go in appeal. Since Ms Sheikh
changed her story long after she swore on oath in the court, it left the
Gujarat Government very little time to prepare a watertight appeal before
the expiry of the stipulated period. Thus, while ordering the Gujarat Government
to file a legally sound plea instead of an allegedly half-hearted one,
the Supreme Court need not have forayed into comments well beyond the prescribed
lakshman rekha. The court should have recalled its own annoyance at similar
pronouncements by the Patna High Court and also by a TADA judge some years
ago who described Parliament as a "fish market". By joining the ranks of
those judicial officers who have breached established conventions in the
past, the Supreme Court may have somewhat sullied its own majesty.
Back
Top |
|
«« Back |
|
|
|
|
|