The Hindu : National : PIL is not a pill for every ill: Sorabjee

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Mar 25, 2007
ePaper


<![if lt IE 4]> <script src="http://servedbyadbutler.com/adserve/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691;type=js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <noscript> <a href="http://servedbyadbutler.com/go2/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691"> <img src="http://servedbyadbutler.com/adserve.ibs/;ID=150167;size=468x60;setID=96691;type=img" border="0" height="60" width="468" alt=""></a> </noscript><![endif]>

National

National

PIL is not a pill for every ill: Sorabjee

Staff Reporter

Warns judicial activism must not degenerate into judicial authoritarianism

NEW DELHI: The former Attorney General Soli J. Sorabjee on Saturday said judicial activism was a welcome idea provided the judiciary did not encroach upon areas of other branches of Government.

Chairing a session on judicial activism during the two-day national conference of bar leaders here, Mr. Sorabjee said judges must not think that the judiciary could solve all problems afflicting the nation.

"Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not a pill for every ill. Every matter of public interest cannot be the basis of PIL. For instance, increase in the price of onions or revision of railway fares or the dilapidated condition of railway stations or the problem of trains not running on time does not form the basis for PIL," he said. He warned that judicial activism should not degenerate into judicial authoritarianism.

For introspection

Bar Association of India president Fali S. Nariman said the idea behind taking up judicial activism, judicial accountability and condition of women in the legal profession was not to make it a battleground against judges but to introspect our faults that were many.

The former Solicitor General T.R. Andhyarujina said the judiciary did not have absolute supremacy in a constitutional democracy. In the past judicial activism was used creatively to help the marginalised reach the doors of justice.

"But judges these days are into laying down rules and parameters for administration and legislature."

"If Parliament or the executive over-reaches its sphere of activity, the judiciary points out that it is unconstitutional. Is it not then unconstitutional if the judiciary does the same to [the] legislature and [the] executive?"

Talking about judicial accountability in view of the Judicial Accountability Bill, the former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rajender Sachar said certain sections in the Bill needed to be clarified.

"For instance, there is a section that provides for impeachment of judges by Parliament but requires the case to be referred again to the Supreme Court. When five judges have already thought the case to be fit for impeachment and sent it to Parliament, what is the need to send it back to the Supreme Court," he pointed out.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National