The Hindu : National : Judiciary has gone beyond the pale of accountability: Brinda Karat

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Oct 08, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Judiciary has gone beyond the pale of accountability: Brinda Karat

Special Correspondent

— Photo: V. Ganesan

Kanimozhi, MP; Brinda Karat, MP and CPI(M) Polit Bureau member; A. Raja, Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology; and A.K. Rajan, retired Judge, Madras High Court, at a discussion on ‘Limits of judicial authority’ in Chennai on Sunday.

Chennai: Speakers at a discussion on ‘Limits of judicial authority’ here on Sunday raised the question whether the judiciary was encroaching on the powers of the other two institutions of democracy — the executive and the legislature.

At the discussion, organised by “Naam (We)”, issues such as the determinants of the limits of judicial authority and where judicial activism ended and authoritarianism began also came up. This was in the context of two judicial interventions: the Supreme Court’s recent oral observations on the October 1 bandh in Tamil Nadu and the contempt proceedings against the staff of Mid-Day.

Inaugurating the discussion, Union Minister for Information Technology and Communications, A Raja, said in the present system, there was “no absolute separation of power among the judiciary, executive and legislature,” he said. The controversy surrounding the Sethusamudram project was because “whenever there was a conflict between faith and science, science should win, but in this case, science lost.”

Brinda Karat, CPI (M) Polit Bureau member said: “Unfortunately, a situation exists now where among the three institutions of democracy, one [the judiciary] has gone beyond the pale of accountability.”

Also, the recent informal comments of Justice B.N. Agrawal of the Supreme Court on dismissing the DMK government “reflected a particular mindset that lowered the court’s dignity,” she said.

“Judicial over-reach”

Such comments were objectionable and reflected judicial overreach and encroached on the role of the legislature. “Strikes, hartals and bandhs are legitimate expressions of public protest,” she said and cited “two instances of judicial over-reach”: that of the Supreme Court’s Empowered Committee’s intervention in the Tribal Rights Bill and the apex court’s demand that the proceedings of the Human Resource Ministry’s standing committee on OBC reservations be submitted to it.

“Judicial reforms are needed, especially in the appointment of judicial officers which should be done only through a judicial council consisting of members of the executive, judiciary, legislature, bar council and members of the public,” Ms. Karat said.

“Untrammelled power”

The obsolete, unjust and uncertain contempt power of the judiciary should be done away with and its “untrammelled power” in appointing its own officers should also be examined, N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu, said. No definition existed of what constituted scandalising a court or interfering with the administration of justice.

“There was no credible mechanism to deal with allegations against the judiciary,” he said and added that Justice Agrawal’s comments were “shockingly unjust when seen against the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in the S.R. Bommai case [dealing with the use of Article 356].”

In the Mid-Day case, the judiciary had reacted by ganging up against the defence of truth, Manoj Mitta, senior editor, The Times of India, said and asked if truth should not be spoken, if it went against public interest.

The sovereignty of the Indian Constitution did not solely lie with any of the democratic institutions but with the people of India, A.K. Rajan, former High Court judge, said, adding that such institutions should be vigilant in protecting their rights.

Kanimozhi, MP, one of the organisers of the forum, said the actions and approach of the judiciary needed to be examined especially if it went against democratic precepts.

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

National