Corruption in India - The Supreme Court says hang the guilty !
"The Corrupt should be hanged in Public"! Guess who made this quotable quote recently- The Al Qaeda, The Taliban, The LTTE?
It was a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
I don't know whether His Lordship was merely in a bad mood or genuinely believes in what he says. Or was this quote meant for consumption f the media to project the Supreme Court as a 'saviour' of the masses? Lately there have been a spurt of issues where the judiciary has been delivering judgements on subjects which ought to be handled by the executive. By tackling these issues head on, the judiciary has acquired an image that this branch alone is some how uncorrupted and better than all the rest.
Consider- the courts are deciding whether kids should be interviewed or not before being admitted to Kindergarten in schools. The court decided that the rule on overloading of lorries had to be strictly followed, which has led to a virtual chaos in a range of industries. Just yesterday, the High court in Delhi termed the decision of the Govt. to impose a peak surcharge on air traffic in peak hours as consumer unfriendly and asked them to relook into it. I can go on and on with examples where the courts seem to be judging matters, where expert decisions need to be taken and are going beyond the remit of interpretation of law.
Because the courts are seen to be taking the cudgels on behalf of the general public and because the reputation of the political classes is in tatters, the society in general more than welcomes the pronouncements of the Courts. More so, because in many cases the courts are seen as the last
Yet, the fact is that the convoluted judicial system, corruption and plain insensitiveness has led to a huge back log of cases (running into millions off cases) and justice being dispensed off after delays of years , if not decades as a matter of routine. This has actually led the society into creating a parallel judiciary- be it in the form of goondas, caste/village courts or other such extra constitutional authorities who freely dispense with their own brand of justice or what passes for it. And what have the courts done to stem this long standing problem? I haven't seen any court pronouncing that this "has to stop" - a tone which is usually used when confronting the executive. Did you know for instance that Courts in India STILL go on a summer recess, just like in the days of the British Raj- for 2 whole months? All work , except the most urgent grinds to a halt! This of course is over and above the already chock a block diary of holidays that any Govt. office has. What is the judiciary doing to reform this?
We, the people, should also understand the futility and the danger of relying and pinning too much hope on one pillar of the constitution. The fact is that the judiciary is not as sqeaky clean ,as it is projected it to be. Neither is it a expert on matters as far ranging as the education of 4 yr olds, pollution from automobiles, to whether or not peak surcharge is the right way to avoid congestion in the air. These matters are best tackled by the executive- who have the experience and more importantly, legitimate authority to tackle these decisions. The courts should only enter when a point on law is brought to bear on such decisions, not otherwise.
Democracy is a institution which is a system of checks and balances. Each pillar of a democracy needs to functions within its remit, while keeping the other institution in check. If we the people allow one to over arch itself, it wont bee long before this privilege is abused. Just look at the Army in Pakistan, which successfully projected itself as a saviour of the nation and under that guise usurped power and pelf, far beyond its entitlement, successfully trampling all democratic systems, in the process.
If we continue looking at the judiciary as the sole saviour, we would fall for the same fate or worse, be considered worthy of being hanged in public by a Lordship!
It was a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
I don't know whether His Lordship was merely in a bad mood or genuinely believes in what he says. Or was this quote meant for consumption f the media to project the Supreme Court as a 'saviour' of the masses? Lately there have been a spurt of issues where the judiciary has been delivering judgements on subjects which ought to be handled by the executive. By tackling these issues head on, the judiciary has acquired an image that this branch alone is some how uncorrupted and better than all the rest.
Consider- the courts are deciding whether kids should be interviewed or not before being admitted to Kindergarten in schools. The court decided that the rule on overloading of lorries had to be strictly followed, which has led to a virtual chaos in a range of industries. Just yesterday, the High court in Delhi termed the decision of the Govt. to impose a peak surcharge on air traffic in peak hours as consumer unfriendly and asked them to relook into it. I can go on and on with examples where the courts seem to be judging matters, where expert decisions need to be taken and are going beyond the remit of interpretation of law.
Because the courts are seen to be taking the cudgels on behalf of the general public and because the reputation of the political classes is in tatters, the society in general more than welcomes the pronouncements of the Courts. More so, because in many cases the courts are seen as the last
Yet, the fact is that the convoluted judicial system, corruption and plain insensitiveness has led to a huge back log of cases (running into millions off cases) and justice being dispensed off after delays of years , if not decades as a matter of routine. This has actually led the society into creating a parallel judiciary- be it in the form of goondas, caste/village courts or other such extra constitutional authorities who freely dispense with their own brand of justice or what passes for it. And what have the courts done to stem this long standing problem? I haven't seen any court pronouncing that this "has to stop" - a tone which is usually used when confronting the executive. Did you know for instance that Courts in India STILL go on a summer recess, just like in the days of the British Raj- for 2 whole months? All work , except the most urgent grinds to a halt! This of course is over and above the already chock a block diary of holidays that any Govt. office has. What is the judiciary doing to reform this?
We, the people, should also understand the futility and the danger of relying and pinning too much hope on one pillar of the constitution. The fact is that the judiciary is not as sqeaky clean ,as it is projected it to be. Neither is it a expert on matters as far ranging as the education of 4 yr olds, pollution from automobiles, to whether or not peak surcharge is the right way to avoid congestion in the air. These matters are best tackled by the executive- who have the experience and more importantly, legitimate authority to tackle these decisions. The courts should only enter when a point on law is brought to bear on such decisions, not otherwise.
Democracy is a institution which is a system of checks and balances. Each pillar of a democracy needs to functions within its remit, while keeping the other institution in check. If we the people allow one to over arch itself, it wont bee long before this privilege is abused. Just look at the Army in Pakistan, which successfully projected itself as a saviour of the nation and under that guise usurped power and pelf, far beyond its entitlement, successfully trampling all democratic systems, in the process.
If we continue looking at the judiciary as the sole saviour, we would fall for the same fate or worse, be considered worthy of being hanged in public by a Lordship!
Labels: CurrentAffairs
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
