Prescription for PILs soon: CJI
SC has said it will consider laying down the guidelines for judiciary to entertain public interest litigations.
By TNN |
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider laying down the guidelines for judiciary to entertain public interest litigations (PILs).
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said, “it is better to have some guidelines whether these types of PILs can be entertained”.
The Chief Justice decided to address the issue when a PIL relating to rehabilitation of sex workers referred to it by a two judge bench headed by Justice S B Sinha came up for hearing.
“We will consider it,” said the Chief Justice on behalf of the bench which comprised Justice R V Raveendran and Justice J M Panchal too. The court posted the matter for further hearing on February 23.
Justice Sinha had refused to hear a PIL taking a cue from the observation made by a co-ordinate bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Markandeya Katju which had said that judiciary must refrain from encroaching on legislative and executive domain otherwise it will boomerang in the form of political class stepping in to clip their wings.
Justice Sinha had referred the PIL relating to rehabilitation of the sex workers to the CJI.
On December 6, a bench comprising Justice A K Mathur and Justice Markandey Katju in an order had said, “if the judiciary does not exercise restraint and over-stretches its limit there is bound to be reaction from politicians and others.
The politicians will then step in and curtail the powers or even independence of the judiciary. The judiciary should, therefore, confine itself to its proper sphere, realising that in a democracy many matters and controversies are best resolved in a non-judicial settings.”
The bench had said that justification often given for judicial encroachment into the domain of the executive or legislature is that the other two organs are not doing their jobs properly.
Even assuming this is so, the same allegation can then be made against the judiciary too because there are cases pending in courts for half-a-century, the two-judge bench had said.
If they are not discharging their assigned duties, the remedy is not judicial interference as it will violate delicate balance of power enshrined in the constitution, bench had remarked.
“We are compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across where judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. In our opinion, this is clearly unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of state” bench had observed.
The bench had cited many examples where judiciary had encroached upon the turf which was unwarranted.
The Jagdambika Pal’s case of 1998 involving UP legislative assembly and the Jharkhand assembly case of 2005 are the two glaring examples of deviations from the clearly provided constitutional scheme of separation of powers, it had said.
The two-judge bench had further said that the Delhi high court order banning interviews of children for admissions into nursery class was illegal as there is no statute or rule which prohibits such interviews.
The observations were made while deciding a case which had challenged Punjab & Haryana high court order directing for the creation of posts of tractor driver to accommodate two gardeners employed on daily wages at a golf club run by the Haryana Tourism Corporation. The apex court had setting aside the order said that it was beyond the jurisdiction of high court.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said, “it is better to have some guidelines whether these types of PILs can be entertained”.
The Chief Justice decided to address the issue when a PIL relating to rehabilitation of sex workers referred to it by a two judge bench headed by Justice S B Sinha came up for hearing.
“We will consider it,” said the Chief Justice on behalf of the bench which comprised Justice R V Raveendran and Justice J M Panchal too. The court posted the matter for further hearing on February 23.
Justice Sinha had refused to hear a PIL taking a cue from the observation made by a co-ordinate bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Markandeya Katju which had said that judiciary must refrain from encroaching on legislative and executive domain otherwise it will boomerang in the form of political class stepping in to clip their wings.
Justice Sinha had referred the PIL relating to rehabilitation of the sex workers to the CJI.
ADVERTISEMENT
On December 6, a bench comprising Justice A K Mathur and Justice Markandey Katju in an order had said, “if the judiciary does not exercise restraint and over-stretches its limit there is bound to be reaction from politicians and others.
The politicians will then step in and curtail the powers or even independence of the judiciary. The judiciary should, therefore, confine itself to its proper sphere, realising that in a democracy many matters and controversies are best resolved in a non-judicial settings.”
The bench had said that justification often given for judicial encroachment into the domain of the executive or legislature is that the other two organs are not doing their jobs properly.
Even assuming this is so, the same allegation can then be made against the judiciary too because there are cases pending in courts for half-a-century, the two-judge bench had said.
ADVERTISEMENT
If they are not discharging their assigned duties, the remedy is not judicial interference as it will violate delicate balance of power enshrined in the constitution, bench had remarked.
“We are compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across where judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. In our opinion, this is clearly unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of state” bench had observed.
ADVERTISEMENT
The bench had cited many examples where judiciary had encroached upon the turf which was unwarranted.
The Jagdambika Pal’s case of 1998 involving UP legislative assembly and the Jharkhand assembly case of 2005 are the two glaring examples of deviations from the clearly provided constitutional scheme of separation of powers, it had said.
The two-judge bench had further said that the Delhi high court order banning interviews of children for admissions into nursery class was illegal as there is no statute or rule which prohibits such interviews.
The observations were made while deciding a case which had challenged Punjab & Haryana high court order directing for the creation of posts of tractor driver to accommodate two gardeners employed on daily wages at a golf club run by the Haryana Tourism Corporation. The apex court had setting aside the order said that it was beyond the jurisdiction of high court.
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
