Constitution Sets A Benchmark For Inclusive Governance & Social Justice : Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Justice B.V. Nagarathna, while speaking in a virtual address at the Columbia Law School, said that the Constitution of India sets a benchmark for inclusive governance and social justice. The Supreme Court judge spoke on “75 Years of the Indian Constitution—Supreme Court and Social Justice: A 75-Year History.” Columbia Law School organized the event in Association with CEDE, the American Constitution Society, the Center for Constitutional Governance, and the Institute for Comparative Literature and Society. At the beginning of her address, Justice Nagarathna stated that our transformative constitution's bold aspirations are manifest in its grant of rights and remedies against oppressive social wrongs such as prejudice, stigma, and exploitation. What is this constitutional vision of social justice? In answer to this question, Justice Nagarathna said that social justice is an ideal that is achieved through the progressive elimination of injustice and inequity in society. It calls for transformative efforts to undo the impact of pervasive social hierarchies and past injustice. It also demands the creations of conditions of justice. Elaborating on these conditions of Justice, she said that these would emerge from an active process of remedy of preventing an act, decision, or situation that would arouse the sense of injustice in the people. The special constitutional provisions and safeguards for weaker sections of the society manifest the intent to create such conditions of justice. “For instance, by granting political reservation to schedule caste and schedule tribes the constitution ensures that the members of socially marginalised groups are not excluded from political executive and governance. In that sense constitution sets a benchmark for inclusive governance and social justice.,” she added. Supreme Court's Contribution To The Quest For Social Justice Justice Nagarathna shared her insights on Public Interest Litigation, where the doctrine of locus standi was substantially diluted to enable the concerned citizens to seek the indulgence of the constitutional courts to remedy an instance of social injustice. To strengthen this, she cited the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, in which a PIL was filed by two Supreme Court advocates underscoring the plight of thousands of under-trial prisoners languishing in various jails. This, in turn, resulted in the release of over 40,000 under-trial prisoners. “PIL is the incarnation of the judicial activism in its people oriented litigative dimension. The Court demonstrated a willingness to act as a bridge between life and law, to blend the structure of adjudication to the needs of the vulnerable members of the society. As a result, undertrial as well as convicted prisoners, women in protected custody, children in juvenile institutions, bonded and migrant labourers, unorganised labourers, Sc and ST, landless agricultural labourers who fall prey to the faulty mechanisation, slum dwellers and pavement dwellers, these and many more groups now come to the Supreme Court seeking justice.” Notably, she also highlighted that at a certain point, the Supreme Court had a specially created Bench designated as a Social justice Bench, which assembled every working Friday at 2 pm to hear public interest litigation and other writ petitions. Justice For Women Speaking under this head, she shared several landmark judgments that have led to the progress of justice for women and sexual minorities. In this respect, she also referred to publication of "Handbook on combating Gender Stereotypes" saying that this would deepen public trust by correcting anti-women prejudices. It may be recalled that it was only last year that this handbook was published to identify and remove the use of words that are loaded with gender stereotypes in judgments and court language. The judgments discussed during the address included CB Muthamma v. Union of India and others., in which Muthamma an officer in the Indian Forest Service challenged IFS rule which prohibited married women from being appointed as a matter of right and required a woman member to obtain permission before her marriage. Though the government withdrew this rule, former Justice Krishna Iyer held: “Discrimination against women, in traumatic transparency, is found in this rule. If a woman member shall obtain the permission of government before she marries, the same risk is run by government if a male member contracts a marriage. If the family and domestic commitments of a woman member of the Service is likely to come in the way of efficient discharge of duties, a similar situation may well arise in the case of a male member. In these days of nuclear families, inter-continental marriages and unconventional behaviour, one fails to understand the naked bias against the gentler of the species.” Underscoring women's financial ...

Constitution Sets A Benchmark For Inclusive Governance & Social Justice : Justice B.V. Nagarathna

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags