Social Justice Has Been Placed On The Back-Burner By The Supreme Court In The Last Few Years: Justice Madan Lokur

The launch of "In pursuit of Justice: An autobiography" by late Justice Rajinder Sachar on Tuesday evening witnessed an interesting panel discussion on "Personal Freedom and Judiciary"The following are the excerpts from the discussion, moderated by renowned journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, among former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B. Lokur and senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi.On whether social justice has come to be placed on the back burner by the Supreme Court in the last few yearsJustice Lokur agreed that the Supreme Court has lost its way in so far is social justice is concerned. He said that about 6 to 7 years ago, when the social justice bench of the Supreme Court was inaugurated, the first case that it had heard was about the rehabilitation of the Sardar Sarovar Dam oustees, filed by social activist Medha Patkar. "Then we dealt with a variety of issues. But in the last two years or so, Social justice has been placed on the back-burner. Because of the pandemic, the Supreme Court should have been far, far more proactive – there was the issue of the migrant labourers, there were thousands of people who were thrown out of their jobs. The Supreme Court could have done better than what it did. So I agree that in the last couple of years, social justice has been placed on the backburner. But unfortunately, we must live with it", he said.Agreeing with Justice Lokur, Mr Rohatgi also stated that that the prime place in the Constitution of India and in the Supreme Court, which he called the "conscience keeper of the nation", is accorded to the infraction of liberty, which has been pushed back in the last few years. "Even habeas corpus petitions have been taking six months to a year to decide. However, initially, these petitions were taken up with utmost priority and decided within two weeks...now other things have taken over", he said. However, he added as a word of caution that while it is very well to blame the court, the Supreme Court has "taken on too much" and that the role of the traditional court has been lost- "So when you take on too much work, the priorities may differ and inconsistencies may come in. However, the Supreme Court must shrug off this inaction and take up vigorously those cases which need to be"In his turn, Mr. Sibal expressed the view that both Justice Lokur and Mr Rohatgi are right. "The Supreme Court has lost its way, not just two years but several years ago. Today, the highly political issues are being taken up. Issues of liberty have been brushed under the carpet. As regards habeas corpus petitions, the case of people being detained in the Kashmir issue for more than a year, which was not under some preventive detention order, but for breach of peace under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. where the detention can only be for a few months but it was extended from time to time, the Supreme Court took no notice. The issue of communication between people, which is the heart of liberty, had not been dealt with. As regards migrant labourers, one law officer came to the Supreme Court and said that there are no people walking on the highways. This is what was said in the court when social media and TV channels showed thousands of people walking on the roads because they had no other means of getting home. There were people who were not supplied with food and it was incumbent on the government under the Disaster Management Act to deal with it, particularly by the National Disaster Management Authority which is headed by the Prime Minister. Businesses, small and medium enterprises had lost out-the court had to reach out to them and ask them how they are doing. But the matters have been lingering for months. We have been too soft on the Supreme Court. What we see is corporate matters coming up and being heard for days at an end. But the more important issues of electoral bonds, CAA are not on the roster of the court at all", he advanced.On how, amid the highly polarised and politicised society, should the judges remain aloof and deliver equitable justice in accordance with the law above allJustice Lokur was of the view that there are two "mantras" which Justice Sachar has also mentioned in his autobiography – one, it is the Constitution of India which is above everything, and too, judges must be people oriented. "Don't get into the technicalities of the law, procedure etc. Do what is called 'human justice'. Justice Sachar has cited a case of divorce by mutual consent which he had dealt with. The law requires a petition for mutual divorce to be filed before the district judge in the trial court, then there is a six month waiting period, post with a divorce is granted. However, the case before him had come in the High Court. The couple in question had not been living together for two years. And they wanted a divorce by mutual consent. One point of view could be how could you come to the High Court? How could the six months period be waived? But Justice Sachar did not let this...

Social Justice Has Been Placed On The Back-Burner By The Supreme Court In The Last Few Years: Justice Madan Lokur

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Social Justice Has Been Placed On The Back-Burner By The Supreme Court In The Last Few Years: Justice Madan Lokur

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers