The Hindu : National : ‘Supreme Court is not a super ombudsman’

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

‘Supreme Court is not a super ombudsman’

Staff Reporter

KOLLAM: T.R. Andhyarujina, former Solicitor General of India, said critical voices must question the judiciary when it oversteps.

A senior advocate of the Supreme Court, Mr. Andhyarujina was addressing a seminar on “Judicial activism” organised here on Tuesday as part of the centenary celebrations of the Kollam Bar Association.

He said judicial aggressiveness was being taken for granted in India. “This will not only be counter-productive but also anti-democratic. The Supreme Court is not expected to be a super ombudsman as if there is no representative government at all.”

“It is a part of democratic process to make the judiciary responsible and accountable. But I have rarely found anyone from the Supreme Court bar criticise judicial activism. This is because they do not want to be critical of the ‘masters’ before whom they appear,” he said. “It is only in academic circles that this judicial activism is questioned.”

Mr. Andhyarujina said, “There is nothing in the Supreme Court which makes it the repository of great wisdom. At the international level, judicial activism has positive overtones. There is a different notion of judicial activism. Here the judiciary often intrudes into the area of the executive and the legislature.”

‘Footling orders’

The Supreme Court and the High Courts issued small footling orders, “making helmets mandatory, on clearing garbage, keeping the streets clean and the like.”

Mr. Andhyarujina wanted to know the productive impact of such orders and the provision that empowers these courts with such micro-management. “This is not the job of the Supreme Court and High Courts,” he said.

Though theoretically the doors of justice were open to all in India, measures were needed to make it accessible. He described public interest litigations as an act of atonement on the part of the Supreme Court. But PIL was mostly used by politicians and businessmen, he said.

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

National