Apex Court Ver/s. Government

[mukeshkumar007]

Dear All,

http://www.bhaskar.com/defaults/editorial_article1.html

Some people say that ongoing understanding between Legislative Institute (Parliament.) & Judicial Institute (Apex Court) is not a good sign for the future. Both are independent and have been assigned different work. Apex court should not cross its Laxman Rekha. What u think that apex court should not interfere when legislative institutes (government and other institutes) not doing justice with their job and playing inferior game with the interest of nation which is not good for the health of a country like India. Sometime it feels good that our supreme court is still active and has watchful eyes to check the development and happening in our country.

 

[deepender]

Mukesh Bhaisa'ab,

This is a very important and interesting subject. One instance comes to mind:

A couple of years back Arundhati Gosh and Mega Patker staged huge protests in front of Gujarat assembly and then the Parliament against Modi govt. in relation to the Narmada dam project. They even filed a PIL which was taken up by the Supreme Court.

Then the Supreme Court came up with ruling favoring Modi govt. Now, when the protestors led by Arundhati Gosh and Mega Patkar again staged a demostration showing dissent against the ruling, both were charged with criminal cases of contempt of court order and had warrants issued against them.

I have no idea who was the right or wrong in this case (Gujarat govt. or the protestors), but what concerned me was the fact that: if an elected govt. does something we don't like - we can protest, demostrate and even vote it out. But if the apex court comes up with a judgment we don't like we can't even show our resentment...

With all due respect to our judiciary which I agree has served us tremendously well in most instances, we need to be careful of "activist" judges with any kind of "hidden agendas".

 

[mkrana]

It is indeed an important topic to talk about. If ambiguities in some rules leads to varied interpretations then it is not the problem of the rules-interpreter ( judiciary ) but of rules-writer (government). Our current set of rules don't represent the current state of society. Current political generation has hardly any weight among masses. Sadly rules are made under communal pressure, vote-bank politics, favouritism - all but - correctness. Take the current example only - reservations which was for initial 10 years is still going on and being used as a political tool to gather localised support. It is not based on the 'requirement' - but rather the political weight. So various regional parties divided the general population in different 'reserved categories' based on ad-hoc criterias which was solely governed by these parties vote politics. The effect - we have one caste getting reservation in one state and not other. The reservation rules were formed in haste and with favouritism (example UP - majority OBC posts were filled by yadavs, and then jat reservation was approved) without giving considerations to complex society structure eg SC/STs converting to Christenity. (FYI: I don't beleive in reservation theory - I call it spoon feeding which is useful only to create pets. No offense intended!)
But still one type of laws are guaranteed to pass with 100% support from all parties - regarding increasing the MP salaries - I sometime wonder - for what?