- The Constitution has demarcated the responsibilities of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary keeping in mind the commonality of purposes, to serve the interest of the nation and its citizens. Any of the three arms of the Constitution getting onto the domain of the other, wittingly or unwittingly, is bound to leave the discharge of responsibilities in a disarray. Of course, there are several instances when overlapping responsibilities occur invariably ensuing in a blame game that potentially disrupts the smooth functioning of the administration itself. You may be aware of the moniker-the judicial activism-which is often bandied about whenever the Constitutional entity encroaches on the forbidden territory.
PC: Vishnu Vardhan
- Now, we are also acutely aware of the huge backlog of cases pending in various courts where even the undertrials are left languishing in jails for want of speedy delivery of justice. Needless to mention, the onus is on the judiciary to clear the millions of pending cases and deliver justice in a reasonable period. Yes, done to death adage like the justice delayed is justice denied will get parroted about by all concerned now and then, but eventually, millions of individuals seeking relief are still left at the mercy of the judicial machinery churning at its own pace. As statistics suggest, there are millions of petty cases being filed and heard by the higher judiciary too which otherwise should have been handled by the executive alone.
- A recent murder of a singer-politician in Punjab soon after his security cover was withdrawn has left the entire country shocked. The matter has reached the Punjab & Haryana high court for the hearing. Pragmatically speaking, the decision on providing special security is best left to the executive. Relatedly, Delhi high court is examining the Delhi government’s decision to allow resto-bars to stay open till 3 am-mind you NCR cities follow similar policies. Mind you, granting and withdrawal of security are executive decisions that should be solely based on threat perceptions. Many states grant undeserving people security cover based on political preferences.
PC: Abhinav Garg & Amin Ali
- Yes, every contentious decision is potential litigation but HCs, with 59 lakh pending cases must be selective about what they hear. On their part, courts can’t say they have to hear such matters and should point blank and say it’s not their job. No wonder, the result of such hearings is often farcical. While the death of a singer with reduced security cover made headlines and enthused the state opposition, the remit remains the state governments’ and nothing useful will come out of court hearings-but sweeping orders forthcoming may have perverse consequences. Look at the Delhi bars matter.
- In neighboring Gurgaon, resto-bars can be open till 8 am and in Noida till 4 am. In Delhi, the closing time extension to 3 is from 1 am faced police objections. But that’s between the Delhi police and the Delhi government. Courts shouldn’t play arbiter here. Drawing a line by well-thought-out guidelines vis-à-vis executive decisions would largely help the judiciary from unnecessarily piling up on the cases, which are mostly irrelevant. The time is ripe to correct the anomaly is now.
