The Hindu : National : 2007- an eventful year for the Supreme Court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jan 02, 2008
ePaper

National

National

2007- an eventful year for the Supreme Court

J. Venkatesan

“Actions of Parliament are subject to judicial review”

OBC quota law stayed

New Delhi: The year 2007 was eventful for both the Supreme Court and Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. The court passed orders on every facet of day-to-day life, be it politics or education or in relation to the Legislature and putting a check on the Executive.

The word “representative Bench” got a new meaning in the year with the appointment of Justice Balakrishnan as the 37th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from January 14.

Ninth Schedule

A nine-judge Bench which examined the scope of Schedule IX of the Constitution held that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review to laws inserted in this Schedule. (Once a law is enacted and included in Schedule IX, it gets protection under Article 31-B — validation of certain Acts and Regulations — and is not subject to judicial scrutiny.) The court held that the power of judicial review could not be taken away by putting a law under Schedule IX.

‘Cash for query’ case

Dealing with the issue of expulsion of MPs caught on camera in a ‘cash for query’ sting operation, the court said the actions of Parliament were subject to judicial review and no absolute immunity could be claimed to usurp the court’s jurisdiction. It, however, upheld the expulsions and said: “Parliament is a coordinate organ and its views do deserve deference even while its acts are amenable to judicial scrutiny.”

The court said: “The constitutional system of government abhors absolutism and it being the cardinal principle of our Constitution, no one, howsoever lofty, can claim to be the sole judge of the power given under the Constitution. Mere coordinate constitutional status, or even the status of exalted constitutional functionaries, does not disentitle this court from exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review of action which partakes of the character of judicial or quasi-judicial decision.”

Passing orders on a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2006, the court stayed the implementation of the law insofar as it pertained to 27 per cent quota for the Other Backward Classes. The Centre sought a clarification on this order and this plea was rejected on April 23. Later a five-judge Bench heard elaborate arguments and the court is expected to give its verdict this month.

Forest Bench

Concerned at the Supreme Court’s interference in the ‘forest cases,’ the Centre filed an application for scrapping the ‘Forest Bench’ stating the court should not think that it was the only institution protecting environment, as the Centre too had a responsibility. However, the Centre withdrew this application.

Curbing ragging

On issues relating to students, the court, by an interim order, directed implementation of the R.K. Raghavan Committee report on measures to put down ragging.

Acting on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition, the court ordered a preliminary enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh and his family members in a “disproportionate assets case.” When a review was sought, Justice A.R. Lakshmanan (since retired), who wrote the judgment, broke down in the court claiming that he received a threatening letter and declined to hear the case further.

There was relief for Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati as the court declined to interfere with the Governor’s decision refusing to grant sanction for her prosecution in the “Taj heritage corridor scam case”

Ramar Sethu issue

On the Sethusamudram project, the court, by an interim order, while allowing the project to continue, stayed the demolition of Ramar Sethu. Subsequently, the Centre filed an affidavit stating Ramar Sethu was not man made, but withdrew it and took time to file a fresh one.

The court sat on a Sunday to hear a petition against the observance of a bandh in Tamil Nadu. By an interim order, it restrained the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and its allies from proceeding with the bandh plan on October 1.

Dismissing a petition, the court declined to interfere with the nomination of Pratibha Patil as the United Progressive Alliance-Left candidate for President.

The court dismissed Mohd. Afzal’s plea to review the death sentence awarded to him in the Parliament attack case. It directed the release on bail of Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt and certain other accused, convicted and sentenced in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case.

Notice to Modi

A few days prior to the second phase of the Assembly polls in Gujarat, the court slapped a contempt notice on Chief Minister Narendra Modi for his speech on Sohrabuddin Sheikh (killed in a fake encounter).

A two-judge Bench criticised courts (including the apex court) for passing orders on PIL petitions which had the effect of interfering with the functions of the Legislature and the Executive. A three-judge Bench, headed by Justice Balakrishnan, quickly responded, agreeing to lay down fresh guidelines for entertaining PIL petitions.

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

National