With SC Foraying Into Every Area, States Have Simply Stopped Listening
Courts have played ducks and drakes with the constitution in recent times. They should pull back before it is too late.
Even as the Supreme Court is having a ball trying to impose its own ideas on how governments should run the country, and even making laws on the legislature’s behalf, it is discovering that few are listening.
On Tuesday (19 April), a bench with Justices
Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra discovered that no state had done anything about
its orders to demolish religious structures that were encroaching on public
spaces and roads. The court threatened to get even tougher.
The basic facts: In September 2011, the Supreme Court had ordered collectors and district magistrates to ensure that no public land was encroached upon. It also ordered chief secretaries to file affidavits before it once in three months on what had been done.
Finding that almost none of them had done anything, the court went apoplectic: “This is the attitude of the chief secretaries despite the Supreme Court’s directions. Are our orders passed for keeping in cold storage? The chief secretaries have no respect for the highest court. We will show them what the court can do. They do not deserve any leniency.” The court may order all of them to be personally present the next time – something like a schoolmaster asking recalcitrants to step forward and take punishment.
To be sure, this is an empty threat. If the chief
secretaries, who have been given one more chance to comply, collectively decide
not to do so as they are constrained by law and order considerations, what can
the Supreme Court do? Dock their wages? Send them to jail?
If this happens, we are going to see a further fall
in governance, as chief secretaries and district administrations, already
overburdened with all kinds of work, may simply do things mechanistically and
comply with orders without application of mind. When the first communal riot
happens after an illegal temple or mosque is demolished, they will throw up
their hands and point out that they were merely implementing court orders.
Consider what all the Supreme Court ordered and
what the states and centre delivered (or, rather, didn’t deliver) in the past.
Ten years ago (in 2006), the Supreme Court ordered
all states to pass new Police Acts and remove politicians from having direct control
over them. It said till the new Police Acts were legislated, its guidelines
must be followed. According to this Indian
Express report, 17 states passed new Acts while 12 issued executive orders. Great compliance?
Nah! Here’s the kicker: the states jumped in and passed new laws in order to avoid complying with the Supreme Court’s
order. The order said its own guidelines must be followed till the Acts were
passed. What the states did was pass the laws and diluted the guidelines. They complied
with the letter of the court’s orders, and defeated its spirit.
In October 2013, the Supreme Court ordered a ban on frequent
transfers of inconvenient bureaucrats. It said that civil servants need not act
on verbal orders, and cannot be transferred frequently. It also ordered states
to constitute a civil services board at the central and state levels, but we
haven’t heard much about compliance.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court ordered a ban on manual
scavenging. But manual scavenging continues.
Just yesterday (19 April), the court stepped onto a federal
landmine when it asked the centre to play a more proactive role in tackling
droughts. When the centre said it had no role to play in declaring districts as
drought-affected, the court said the centre must give states the right advice.
It offered its own two bits on this too: ““You have satellites to give you
weather forecasts and the Centre must caution the state if you learn about the
possibility of a drought in a district, even if it reports a good crop season.”
Does this make sense? That the centre must give advice on how
states must handle drought, even though it is the states which are closest to ground
reality. More often than not, it is the states which exaggerate the damage from
drought and floods in order to obtain more central resources. But the courts
think nothing about deliberately suggesting a shift in federal responsibilities
from states to centre – something not warranted under the constitution.
We can go on and on, but the fact that the Supreme Court has been
issuing all kinds of directives – no doubt, with the best of motives - has resulted
in growing resistance to compliance. The simple fact is
this: some states have stopped listening too much to court orders, as they simply
do not have the administrative capacity, the political will or the moral
courage to do so. And what elected representatives can’t do or won’t do, it is
not possible the courts to get it done through judicial fiat.
It is not anyone’s case that the court should not
intervene in humanitarian cases or where there are serious breaches of the law.
But it cannot also be gainsaid that the court is foraying too much into
executive and legislative terrain, running a coach-and-four over the
constitutional balance of power.
The Modi government and the Supreme Court have been
in a tense relationship ever since the Supreme Court overturned the National
Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was an attempt to claw back some
say for the government in the appointment of judges to the higher courts. But
it is clear that judicial over-reach is more to blame for this
behind-the-scenes confrontation. The Supreme Court is simply doing things which
are not its core job even while cases are piling up.
The other day, President Pranab Mukherjee was
forced to wade into the controversy when he observed that judges must not get
overactive. He said: “Each organ of our
democracy must function within its own sphere and must not take over what is
assigned to the others. Judicial activism should not lead to the dilution of
separation of powers, which is a constitutional scheme. The balance of power
between the three organs of the state is enshrined in our Constitution. The Constitution
This is not some government hack having a go at the courts; it is the highest constitutional officeholder in the land. That it needs a President to read out the constitution to the Supreme Court, which ought to know it by heart, is a telling comment on how much they have played ducks and drakes with the constitution. They should pull back before it is too late.
As you are no doubt aware, Swarajya is a media product that is directly dependent on support from its readers in the form of subscriptions. We do not have the muscle and backing of a large media conglomerate nor are we playing for the large advertisement sweep-stake.
Our business model is you and your subscription. And in challenging times like these, we need your support now more than ever.
We deliver over 10 - 15 high quality articles with expert insights and views. From 7AM in the morning to 10PM late night we operate to ensure you, the reader, get to see what is just right.
Becoming a Patron or a subscriber for as little as Rs 1200/year is the best way you can support our efforts.