- The Indian judiciary is still considered the last resort for the common citizens of the country seeking justice, relief, and closure on legal matters. It could be civil, litigation of a diverse nature, criminal, or anything closely affecting our day-to-day existence, the courts come to the fore in delivering justice to mitigate the challenges/difficulties the commoners face. Moreover, citizens consider the higher judiciary to be the last resort when the lower judiciary’s adjudications are challenged. To its credit, the Supreme Court has truly lived up to the Constitutionally mandated responsibilities of upholding the rights as guaranteed. Of course, the High Courts too have positioned themselves as a commendable justice delivery entity benefiting the commoners.
PC: The Legal Affair
- Of course, the talks of judicial activism keep resonating within the country whenever the SC steps to address the sensitively demarcated domains of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. However, the schism emanating between the SC and the HC sometimes over matters of judicial adjudication causes ordinary citizens to wonder what’s happening with the country’s justice delivery system. The nation woke up to the news recently about the Punjab & Haryana high court judge’s unwarranted comments about the SC. As is its wont, the SC dealt with the remarks against it. But the real issue is courts must put justice over remit without any questions asked. SC bench had a special sitting to take to task a judge over comments in a complex and troubling situation.
- And it also resonates with important lessons. It’s not simply a matter of an HC judge’s criticism of SC, which the top court dealt with recently, calling the remarks unnecessary and unwarranted, and expunging them. SC made it abundantly clear that parties may be aggrieved by an order, but a judge can never be aggrieved by a higher appellate forum. We must understand what triggered the judge’s outburst. SC stayed a contempt-of-court order on which the judge, charged with contempt proceedings, was initiating action against the Haryana government for non-compliance with an earlier HC order. The appeal in SC was only against the contempt order, not the original order. The upshot: a stay on contempt risks being interpreted as a stay on non-compliance.
PC: Live Law
- The judge said SC hadn’t considered the consequences of staying the HC’s contempt order. That such stays had implications on the ground. For instance, it was argued that a stay by SC on HC’s contempt orders had been interpreted as a de facto stay on the order itself in a case of pay grades of judicial officers, which is still hanging fire. The judiciary is best placed to carry out its damage control measures. Yes, the judge’s outburst was uncalled for. The judiciary’s reputation is built on trust, integrity, and smooth functioning. The judiciary’s federal structure is feeling a certain strain. Judiciary across levels should pay heed to what SC said recently, that courts are not supreme, but the Constitution is. Absolutely!
