Both judges and netas should know their limits

NEW DELHI: The legislature, comprising elected representatives who purportedly have a finger on the pulse of the masses, is tasked to address and ameliorate their grievances and daily grind by formulating such policies that would set the people and country on the path of development and general welfare. The task of the judiciary, historically and even till date, has always been equated with God's work — to do 'justice' in the true sense. Judiciary is the heart of democracy, as it is the final protector of life and liberty of every citizen. The Constitution-makers laboured hard to craft distinct roles for the two organs to keep democracy in a healthy state. In a vibrant democracy, the two were to dance the tango — one charting out the course for the well-being of people and the nation, the other testing the correctness of these policy decisions. Ours is a vibrant democracy, the political leaders have told us many times. If it were really so, then why are both — the legislature and the judiciary — gripped of late with a phobia of losing their turf to the other. Just a few days back, Speaker Somnath Chatterjee — who on numerous occasions has warned the judiciary not to over step the Lakshman Rekha, was in anguish because of undisciplined behaviour of members of Parliament in the House. Failing in his numerous attempts for an orderly transaction of business in the House, a frustrated Chatterjee issued a strange warning — unless loopholes in the parliamentary system were plugged, there was a possibility of judiciary encroaching upon its space. The upper echelon of the judiciary, not long ago, held out a similar warning. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court stirred the political class into an affirmative chuckle after it launched an uncharacteristic broadside against judicial activism. "If the judiciary does not exercise self-restraint and over-stretches its limits, there is bound to be a reaction from politicians. The politicians will then step in and curtail the power, or even the independence of judiciary," was the bench's sombre warning. The House of People's presiding officer is wary of the prospect of the judiciary encroaching into the legislature's turf, if its members do not fall in line. The judiciary was equally fearful of its independence being curtailed by the legislature, if judges did not observe restraint. Why has the vibrant democracy come to such a pass that two important organs of governance have developed acute self-doubt, that has translated into fear of losing turf to the other? There are still a lot of people with impeccable character and integrity in both these organs. But the lurking fear is they might not be enough to erase this self-doubt or cure the insecurity. More persons with criminal background are being elected to the legislatures. But the parliamentary system is yet to evolve a filter to weed them out. MPs gratifyingly occupy posts that normally could disqualify them for holding offices of profit. Instead, the system — or those who are at the helm of the affairs — rush in a law and apply it retrospectively to exempt the posts from the purview of disqualification. Why are the number of those, who think that 'judiciary is at cross-roads', swelling by the day? A vast majority of judges in the superior judiciary do not lack integrity and could not be termed pliant. But certain decisions by certain judges at a certain juncture of time appearing to unnaturally tilt the scale of justice, are doing no good to its clean image. The independence of the judiciary takes a beating when some judges, at the end of their career, queue up before the political bosses for a post-retirement rehabilitation that could entitle them to a sprawling official bungalow. This fetish for bungalows by some has dealt a blow to its image. What next? More precisely — what is the solution? If on one hand the judges must know their limits and not try to run the government, people's representatives too, on the other hand, must dispel the false notion that their will is that of the people and try and steam roll every other organization. Had that been so, then people would not have imposed Emergency upon themselves! The judiciary urgently needs a few H R Khannas, who could fearlessly eschew the lure of post-retirement sinecures and brace themselves to take the lonely righteous path, unmoved by the blandishments, in whatever shape, from politicians, bureaucrats and litigants. And, who would be required to salvage the tattered image of politicians so intrinsic to the prestige of Parliament? Well, the answer should come from the top politicians, who hold the reins of the main parties, and not from the people. dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com
TIMES OF INDIA; 10 Mar 2008, 0215 hrs IST , Dhananjay Mahapatra , TNN