 | | Our July 1997 cover | For a democracy, it is vital that its four pillars-judiciary, legislature, executive and the Press-function effectively in their assigned roles. Lately, however, the judiciary and the executive, have been on a collision course. Last week's Supreme Court ruling on reservation in educational institutions for OBCs is the latest in a flurry of judicial pronouncements that have led to a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, from the issue of clemency to those facing the death penalty to the Office of Profit Bill, the expulsion of MPs charged with accepting cash for queries in Parliament and the sealing of commercial properties which has set the Delhi government against the Supreme Court. The face-off has assumed serious proportions. Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee said "Everyone has to remain within the Laxman Rekha drawn by the Constitution," referring to the judiciary's interpretation of the Office of Profit Bill and has refused to entertain summons by the apex court. Even the Prime Minister remarked, "I feel judicial activism must be used in a restrained manner." Judicial activism is a tricky issue. It has been welcomed, as in the case of the clemency debate, the office of profit issue and to some extent, in the Delhi sealings. But on issues that are traditionally under the purview of the executive, the lines are blurred. The judiciary cannot be the judge and the implementor simultaneously. Nor should it tell the government how to govern. Unfortunately, judicial intervention is sending out precisely these signals and provoking an executive backlash. Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal has been critical of the government on some issues while political parties are increasingly agitated at the manner in which the judiciary has challenged the authority of Parliament and the government. Confrontation aside, what is at stake is the very foundation of democracy. There are those who insist that it is the duty of the courts to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen and to uphold the Constitution in letter and spirit, political sentiments of the day notwithstanding. Elected legislators on the other hand feel they are supreme as they are answerable to the people unlike the judiciary. It seems many areas of conflict stem from the falling standards of administration and governance. This has resulted in a spurt in public interest litigations which has increased judicial activism. Predictably, politicians have been irked by this development as they see this as trespassing into their turf. Our cover story in this issue examines both sides of the argument and looks at where the line between the two institutions needs to be drawn. As a former chief justice points out in his column in our cover story: In the end it is about public good and not individual or institutional power. Index
|
