SC asks courts to curb judicial activism
SC says the judiciary must refrain from encroaching on legislative and executive domain otherwise it will boomerang in the form of political class stepping to clip their wings.
By Sanjay K Singh, TNN |
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court in an order has said that the judiciary must refrain from encroaching on legislative and executive domain otherwise it will boomerang in the form of political class stepping to clip their wings.
A bench comprising Justice AK Mathur and Justice Markandey Katju 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 court 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, bench 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, remarked the court.
“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” said bench.
The court cited many examples where judiciary had encroached upon the turf which was unwarranted.
The Jagdambika Pal 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, said bench.
It 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 came while deciding a case which challenged the Punjab & Haryana High Court order directing 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 setting aside the order said that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court.
A bench comprising Justice AK Mathur and Justice Markandey Katju 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 court 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, bench 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, remarked the court.
“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” said bench.
The court cited many examples where judiciary had encroached upon the turf which was unwarranted.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Jagdambika Pal 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, said bench.
It 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 came while deciding a case which challenged the Punjab & Haryana High Court order directing 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 setting aside the order said that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the 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
