The Hindu Business Line : <I>Time for judicial introspection </I>

It is axiomatic that there can be no rule of law unless those dispensing and enforcing the law play their role effectively and impartially. Foremost in maintaining the sanctity of the rule of law is the judiciary of the land. For it is the one institution that still enjoys the trust and faith of the people at large and has largely escaped the ravages that politics is making on institutions such as the bureaucracy and the police.

That is why the first thought of those aggrieved by any action or decision of public servants is to make a beeline to the nearest court seeking redress. That explains the increasing willingness of the judiciary too to act as a safety valve even if it means intervening and giving directions in matters which, on the face of them, do not involve any judicial interpretation of questions of law, but primarily relate to administrative inaction or failure of implementation.

The courts themselves will be the first to concede that laying on line their coercive and punitive powers under the law by becoming the surrogates of the executive organs of governance, if carried too far, is apt to prove a costly distraction, eating into the time that is legitimately meant to be spent on substantive cases calling for the concentrated application of all their legal acumen and authority. It is no reflection on the highly respected position in which the judiciary is held to say that it is no part of a judge's sphere of competence to act the super-administrator and lay down deadlines for carrying out instructions to officials in the field.

Layman-like declamations

Allowing the judicial process to be over-flooded with interventions of an administrative nature carries with it four major risks: Courts are likely to lose track of, and control over, their own orders, in the midst of their proper judicial responsibilities. They may pass impractical orders which do not take account of ground realities, and which, with the best will, the executive departments find it difficult to implement. Cracking the whip or hauling those lagging behind in compliance for contempt too often will only force them to get round their predicament by various subterfuges under and outside the law. The net result of all this would be to dethrone the judiciary from the high pedestal it occupies and embroil it in the nitty-gritty of day-to-day administration, progressively weakening its capacity to set things right.

There is nowadays a trend that is asserting itself in judicial hearings, especially in the higher courts. Except for obtaining clarifications or in the interest of relevance or time management, judges in the olden days were required to listen to arguments without interruption, and more importantly, without giving any indication of what passes in their minds. Certainly, any layman-like impromptu declamations or hortatory homilies were taboo. These days, many a time, before the hearing takes off, the presiding judge lets himself go on what he thinks of men and matters. It is best that any such comments reserved for the judgments.

Another cardinal principle that used to be held sacrosanct in times of yore was that judges should refrain from participating in public functions, socialising in clubs, and being seen in the company of, or accepting any form of hospitality from, personalities in politics or business. If such a rule was considered mandatory in times with a high sense of values, how much more is it necessary for these days of utter effrontery?

B. S. RAGHAVAN

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Offhand

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Grassroots banking

Time for judicial introspection

Growing risks to economy

Balancing trade security and facilitation

Farmers as businessmen — Inclusive growth in a small corner

`Clinical studies are subject to very strict rules and guidelines'

Achilles' heel

Identity cards