Not receiving justice in a timely manner is no less than an injustice itself.
At present, a new social and constitutional crisis is emerging. Instead of addressing serious constitutional issues, various matters such as violence, unrest, water, pollution, elections, disputes among political parties, decisions of Parliament or legislative assemblies, and many other cases are being directly heard in the Supreme Court, and the Honourable Chief Justice is issuing orders and directives. The Supreme Court is seeking answers from the police regarding the violence from Manipur to Haryana. In the centrally administered Delhi, the Supreme Court wants the rights of officers’ appointments or the appointments of heads of central investigation agencies, or their terms, to be carried out as per its orders. The framers of the Constitution probably never envisioned such clashes and interventions. When the justices of the Supreme Court themselves start giving directions to governments and administrations, even the judges of High Courts or district courts might attempt to run the system according to their own discretion rather than the law. This situation could be detrimental to both society and democracy in the long run.
There is no doubt that even today, the judiciary is highly respected in the country, and millions of people have faith in it. Perhaps this is the reason that judges of the courts, at times, express their opinions and provide directions beyond constitutional provisions. For years, the biggest issue in the judicial system has been the delay in hearings and the continuous increase in pending cases. Currently, there are around 500 million pending cases in the country’s courts. In the High Courts alone, there are approximately 3.3 million pending cases. The Supreme Court has around 69,000 pending cases. According to an official report, there are 1.4 million cases pending in the country’s courts for 10 years, 3 million cases pending for five to 10 years, and approximately 71,000 cases have been ongoing for 30 years. Perhaps there will be no such situation in any country in the world. Not receiving justice in a timely manner is no less than an injustice itself. The question is about prioritizing the judiciary’s reforms and improving the justice system.
The Constitution clearly delineates the powers and limits of the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislature. It is expected that in a democracy, there should be a balance, harmony, and restraint. Disagreements regarding the rights, appointments, and decisions of governments and the judiciary have been apparent over the last 50 years. However, in recent years, a phase of clashes has started to emerge. Courts are even beginning to display the role of social and political activists. On the other hand, disputes involving politicians see quick hearings and relief, while cases related to the suffering of ordinary people only see the extension of dates, which exacerbates their plight. No amount of orders issued by the courts on matters ranging from cleanliness, roads, police, hospitals, to border security can be effective unless implemented by governments, administrations, and the military. District collectors might possess some judicial powers at the district level, but not every judge holds administrative authority.
Recently, the Supreme Court also acknowledged that the highest court cannot be used as a platform to escalate tensions in Manipur. The Supreme Court stated that it cannot take the law and order machinery into its own hands to prevent violence. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha mentioned that, in order to improve the situation as much as possible, the court can provide guidance to officials and for this, it requires assistance from various groups and constructive suggestions.
On the other hand, a few months ago, the Supreme Court raised pointed questions to the central government regarding its intention if administrative tasks in Delhi are to be carried out based on the orders of the Centre. With this aspect from the Centre that all officers stationed in the capital belong to the central government, which exercises administrative control over them, a Constitution Bench led by CJI Chandrachud questioned, “What is the intention behind this? If administrative tasks are to be performed on the orders and directions of the Centre, there is no elected government in Delhi.” Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta had stated that the Constitution does not envisage “services” for Union Territories. The officers posted in Delhi belong to the All India Services, which include the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the Indian Police Service (IPS), and the Indian Forest Service (IFS). These officers are drawn from the AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram, and Union Territories) cadre, which also includes officers from the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli Civil Services, as well as the Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (DASS). Mehta stated that all of these are central services, and the central government is their disciplinary authority, controlling their transfers and postings.
Later, the central government issued an ordinance and now a new bill has been passed in Parliament. Speaking on the “National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2023” during a discussion, Home Minister Amit Shah said that Delhi is neither a full state nor a full Union Territory. As the national capital, there is a specific provision under Article 239AA in the Constitution. Article 239AA gives this Parliament complete authority to enact laws on all matters related to the National Capital Territory of Delhi or any subject connected with it. In the Supreme Court’s judgment, it is clearly stated in paragraphs 86, 95, and 164(F) that Parliament has the right to enact laws on matters related to the National Capital Territory of Delhi under Article 239AA. Amit Shah stated that the PattabhiSitaramaiah Committee had recommended granting full statehood to Delhi. However, when this matter came before the interim Constituent Assembly, leaders like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel, Rajaji (Rajagopalachari), Dr. Rajendra Prasad, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had opposed granting full statehood to Delhi.
Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that in Britain, Parliament holds virtually unlimited power to make laws, courts can only interpret their enactments. Due to the written Constitution in India, the courts have the authority to strike down certain ordinances and laws. However, it would be erroneous to claim that only the judiciary is the guardian of democracy. In reality, in a democracy, the Parliament holds the supreme position, and weakening its power would undermine democracy. In the United States as well, the Supreme Court often resolves conflicts with the elected government. A saying is prevalent there: “The argument that convinces American judges the most is the number of votes.”
The writer is editorial director of ITV Network—India News and Dainik Aaj Samaj.