Redefining Activism

 

 

This is one issue that refuses to go away. Even as parliamentarians, led mainly by leaders of the Left, parties have been targeting the Courts, including the Supreme Court, for their `meddling’ in the affairs of the legislature, the apex court has struck back. Pulling up the Delhi High Court for its zealousness in picking up public causes, it said that the courts have to exercise restraint lest politicians curtail their independence.

In a throwback to the salad days of activism of the 1990s when courts virtually picked up every public petition which came their way, the current stand adopted by the Supreme Court could help in redefining activism itself. A two-member bench of the apex court, led by Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju, held that if the “judiciary does not exercise restraint and overstretches its limits, there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will then step in and curtail the powers of or even the independence of the judiciary.”

The Supreme Court took strong exception to the Delhi High Court’s recent intervention in cases like nursery admissions, free beds for the poor in hospitals, the blueline bus menace, unauthorised constructions and virtually every affair that concerns the public.

The Court made no bones about what it wanted: “Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like emperors. There is a board separation of powers under the Constitution and no organ of the state – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary should encroach into each others’ domain,” thereby making it clear that the great wave of judicial activism that shaped several dramatic political developments in the last decade, could now be a thing of the past.

The results were evident on Tuesday itself when a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court refused to hear a PIL seeking relief for “sex workers”. A Bench, headed by Justice S B Sinha, referred the maintainability of the PIL to a larger bench. In a terse order, the Bench observed that in view of yesterday’s (Monday’s) judgement by the Supreme Court against judicial intervention in executive and legislative matters, it was referring the matter to a larger bench. What will happen if the Courts do not entertain PIL’s? Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, told TSI: “The observations are too general in nature and certainly not binding. Since observations of this kind can dampen the spirit of judicial activism, it is important that they be referred to a larger bench where suitable clarifications can be issued. It is likely to embolden judges who do not prefer activism in the first place.” The political class was celebrating though following SC's observation.