The court is going valorant mode !

Research & Opinion

The Supreme Court over the past two years

The supreme court is the apex court vested with the plenary powers, subject to parliamentary scrutiny. But, the supreme court has over time in turn changed and revamped the image that it has been long far connected with. In this article we shall explore the same.

The apex court’s ruling in the case of legislation of same sex marriage in turn emphasised on the very intricate and fragile division of power as envisioned by our constitution makers among the different organs of the state. Through this judgment, over time the court has not tried to scuttle the belief in the legislative arena. Theoretically and in a much principled manner, the judiciary should consider itself with interpretation and moreover review of law, but making laws is not in the domain of the judicial realm. Thereby this time the court has prevented itself from what used to be folly of judicial overreach. The court’s take on several environmental matters has led to this popular opinion among political scientists.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta also took a dig at the court’s functioning then, and said that the court’s functioning should be based on principles rather than predilections. In the case of same sex marriage the court has shifted the ball on to the legislature’s court. What we are usually hesitant to talk about is legislative inertia and lack of executive action. Legislature thereby now has the vicarious responsibility of resorting to the genuine demands of LGBTQIA+ community. However, the court didn’t evade its fundamental responsibility as it called on the government to take proactive measures to prevent any sort of mental abuse or physical assault that the community might be subjected to. It has also called out the legislature to spread awareness about gender identities.

The court in turn placed a sound restraint on executive arbitrariness by declaring the electoral bonds as unconstitutional. The electoral bonds which was rolled out by the incumbent government in 2018 was termed as unconstitutional by the apex court based on the selective anonymity that the bond carried that ought to be in conflict with the Right to Information of a citizen. The core argument in favor of the scheme was transparency or removal of black money, had no merits and was countered point by point.Moreover the court showed extraordinary responsibility by asking SBI to strictly adhere with the court’s decision and not to engage in any mischief. As CJI also had said during the hearing, that the idea is not to go back to cash or to continue with opaque policy but to evolve a policy that is compatible with the fundamental rights of citizens and also ensure due transparency. The court showed democratic and judicial valor by not succumbing to the pressure of ad populum but rather being rational and constitutional. Making the bond data public although could not compensate for the already done illegitimate encashments but still could open the doors for public scrutiny, citizens can now access information that they always had ought to know. With a tough and unbending stance, the court left no space for political and legal compromises.

Moreover, its judgment that the aldermen who happened to be nominated members of the Lieutenant Governor in Delhi were not allowed to vote in Mayoral Elections was a testimony to the fact that political acrimony cannot be a ground to curtail constitutional freedom of the elected representatives. Moreover, it emphasized that the administrative machinery cannot be the stalemate or be plagued by federal tussle.

The judgment of the top court on abrogation of Article 370 also cleared the clouds that the judges in the top notch court had some preexisting prejudice or vendetta. The court has in the span of previous two years, given revolutionary judgements which have in turn left no room for political reciprocity or loyalty.

But still firmly believing that justice inaccessible is justice denied, the court has a long path to tread on. The court needs to chalk out accessibility, push on for reforms that lead to greater recruitment of judges, review the burden on judiciary and set precedents for the local courts.

(The views expressed in this article pertain to the opinion of the writer, which he has formed post evaluation of the status on ground as well as from exploring multiple information sources. In case of any suggestions or discrepancies, feel free to write to him via email )

Lakshay Rajput | Undergraduate Student, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Tuljapur

[email protected]