Justice Katju. In the little dialogue between him and Prashant Bhushan,
there are two lines that Justice Katju says that I find to be the reason
for his actions.
1. ``So many directions have been given. What is the result?''
2. ``People must not have any illusions that judiciary can solve their problems.''
While I fully commend the judiciary for its continued war against injustice, my problem is with the means and not the end. There are two reasons why judicial activism should be limited. One is the question of enforceability. There are too many decisions that the Court gives that are never implemented. It isn't enough for the Court to decide in your favor. Unless it is implemented, it's as bad as before the judgment was given. This in itself should necessitate the search for alternate remedies.
The second reason is scope and priority. The Supreme Court and High Courts have been extending the scope of their jurisdiction with every passing day. In the long run, this isn't desirable. More importantly, as this happens, more cases are allowed. While each case may be deserving, there has to be a sense of practicality and reality. You must concede that you have finite resources, time and judges. Given these constraints, you cannot handle an increasing number of cases. Hence, it is imperative that you limit your scope to a manner such that the cases you hear are heard well and that quality of justice as opposed to number of cases decided increases.
This narrowing of scope by cutting the limits of judicial activism does not mean that these cases shouldn't be or will not be decided. For a long time, I've been thinking and trying to tell people that the answer is structural. There should be better systems in place to split grievances. This is not a case. There is no lis. These cases should be handled by either the Parliament or the Executive. The answer is to have, Like in the US, lobbying bodies and increased participation between people, their elected representatives and government, without recourse to the judiciary. We can see from the American example that this leads to greater and faster response to these primarily, public policy questions.
1. ``So many directions have been given. What is the result?''
2. ``People must not have any illusions that judiciary can solve their problems.''
While I fully commend the judiciary for its continued war against injustice, my problem is with the means and not the end. There are two reasons why judicial activism should be limited. One is the question of enforceability. There are too many decisions that the Court gives that are never implemented. It isn't enough for the Court to decide in your favor. Unless it is implemented, it's as bad as before the judgment was given. This in itself should necessitate the search for alternate remedies.
The second reason is scope and priority. The Supreme Court and High Courts have been extending the scope of their jurisdiction with every passing day. In the long run, this isn't desirable. More importantly, as this happens, more cases are allowed. While each case may be deserving, there has to be a sense of practicality and reality. You must concede that you have finite resources, time and judges. Given these constraints, you cannot handle an increasing number of cases. Hence, it is imperative that you limit your scope to a manner such that the cases you hear are heard well and that quality of justice as opposed to number of cases decided increases.
This narrowing of scope by cutting the limits of judicial activism does not mean that these cases shouldn't be or will not be decided. For a long time, I've been thinking and trying to tell people that the answer is structural. There should be better systems in place to split grievances. This is not a case. There is no lis. These cases should be handled by either the Parliament or the Executive. The answer is to have, Like in the US, lobbying bodies and increased participation between people, their elected representatives and government, without recourse to the judiciary. We can see from the American example that this leads to greater and faster response to these primarily, public policy questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment