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