EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
Unjust criticism of SC ignores its stellar contributions
Recently, the description of Supreme Court of India as ‘Judicial Barbarism’ has alarmed many experts who found out that the it is an unwise and rash attempt to diminish the faith of the public in an institution.
Current scenario in Indian Judiciary
- The deliberate refusal of court to act in defence of citizens and groups who have been victimized for their protest and dissent, or who are only exercising their fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression had raised many eyebrows.
- The court has refused to do timely hearings of cases that go to the heart of the institutional integrity of a democracy such as the electoral bonds case.
- The democratic barbarism, where every issue is now thought of through the prism of partisan combat, has now infected assessment of the judiciary partly as a result of its own inability to project that it is above the fray.
Significance of Supreme Court of India
- The Constitution of India has provided for a single integrated system of Courts to administer both Union and State laws.
- According to the Indian constitution, the Supreme Court is the guardian of fundamental rights in the country and the court has often intervened when those rights were infringed, either by legislative or executive action.
- The Supreme Court is the highest appeal court that is also known as the apex court of India and even the last resort, where the citizens of India can seek justice if they are not satisfied with the judgment of the High court.
- India ranks in the top one-third of nations in efficiency of the legal framework to challenge regulations and in judicial independence.
- Smooth conduct of business by the Supreme Court: It is this Supreme Court that has so fiercely guarded the fundamental right to privacy and directed a floor test within 24 hours in Maharashtra that led to the resignation of Devendra Fadnavis as chief minister.
- It upheld liberty by defending LGBTQ and transgender rights, ruled in favour of women in the Army, guaranteeing them the same terms of employment as men, and upheld the supremacy of the RTI Act over the Official Secrets Act.
- The Supreme Court has Judicial Review power that is being vested through Article 13 of the Constitution, which means the Supreme Court has the power to strike down any legislation and executive action if such acts are found to be inconsistent with the Constitution of India.
Criticism to working of Supreme Court of India
- Political polarisation of the judiciary: The purpose of politics is no longer equal justice for all but it is to convert politics into a game of victims and oppressors and ensure that your side comes up the winner.
- The politics sees protest, dissent, and freedom of expression all through the prism of potential enemies of the state.
- Weak protection for civil liberties and dissenters: The court becomes excessively concerned with its version of lese majesty because its majesty is secured not by its credibility but by its power of contempt.
- Double standard and discriminatory treatment meted out to litigants: The singular urgency the Supreme Court has shown in the cases where the interest of the current government is involved.
- Question mark over court's openness to criticism and public scrutiny: India's Supreme Court recently handed down a token fine of one rupee to renowned lawyer and human rights activist Prashant Bhushan who was held guilty of contempt of court.
- The court has exposed itself as an institution that is not tolerant, and which doesn't allow free expression on its functioning and its failures.
- Backlogs plaguing our judicial system: The ICC Tribunal found that the Indian Supreme Court’s inability to hear an Australian investor’s appeal for over 5 years amounted to a breach of India’s obligation to provide investors with effective means to enforce their rights.
- Large numbers of seats are vacant in the judiciary system: There is a tussle between executive and judiciary over who should be appointing judges rather than how should judges be appointed.
- Lack of transparency: The Judiciary does not come under the ambit of the Right to the Information Act.
- In the functioning of the Indian judiciary system, the substantial issues like the quality of justice and accountability are not known to the citizens properly.
How unjust criticism of SC ignores its stellar contributions?
- Unjust and unfair description of the conduct of the Supreme Court: The description of conduct of Supreme Court of India as ‘Judicial Barbarism’ implies a cruel, harsh and brutal behaviour, devoid of any culture and civilisation.
- Apex court being criticised for over-interference: The courts have strained to protect the life, liberty and the quality of life of citizens at the cost of being criticised for over-interference.
- Any implication that the SC is barbaric displays a disregard for the social responsibility that accompanies freedom of speech.
- India’s overworked judiciary has, despite all odds and limitations, been an epitome of a free and independent judiciary worldwide.
- Unjustified comparison from international courts: In Poland, a legislative proposal aimed to ban judges from obeying the orders from their own Supreme Court making them liable for prosecution.
- In Turkey, President Erdogan sacked thousands of judges and prosecutors and replaced them with government loyalists.
- Hungary is planning to create a government-influenced court system, apart from the ordinary courts, to establish direct political control over the judiciary.
- Supreme Court to discourage the use of Article 32: The words of the Chief Justice of India were misinterpreted and it clearly intended to discourage frivolous petitions and reduce the immense backlog in the SC.
- Supreme Court provides isolated instances of relief: The critics of the Court have displayed an increasingly disturbing trend to focus purely on the negatives and conveniently brush past any of the accomplishments.
Measures to be adopted to strengthen the Supreme Court of India
- The judiciary needs to strengthen its institutions with balanced and constructive critique and not slowly nibble at their foundation by constant badgering and berating.
- Increase the strength of the judiciary: In order to increase the strength, All India recruitment exam (All India judicial services) may help in resolving the issue of appointment of judges.
- Keep courts open throughout the year: In order to deal with the pendency of cases it is necessary that the courts are open throughout the year.
- Relook at the accountability system for judges in India: The principles of judicial independence and accountability are sometimes regarded as fundamentally opposed to one another.
- The maintaining of the equilibrium between accountability and independence is the real task at hand and the means of accountability adopted can determine the extent of independence granted to the judiciary.
Road Ahead
- The criticism is the hallmark of a thriving democracy, but unfounded and unrestrained armchair criticism is detrimental rather than contributive which demoralises and destroys institutions.
- Calling the judiciary barbaric and describing the judges as “savagely cruel and harsh, shorn of any vestige of a judicious temperament” is most imbalanced and prejudiced.
- It is time now for courts to resume their solemn duty of protecting the liberties of the people, and start imposing heavy fines on politicians at whose instance illegal arrests and detention orders are passed.
Judicial Barbarism
- The word barbarism is derived from “barbarous” which has been defined variously as being “uncivilized; wild; savage, crude” and “savagely cruel or harsh”.
- The first component of barbarism is the overwhelming appearance of arbitrariness in judicial decision-making.
- The application of law becomes so dependent on the arbitrary whims of individual judges that the rules of law or constitutional terms no longer have any meaning.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies