Judiciary is not slipping into ‘barbarism

Judiciary is not slipping into ‘barbarism

The framers of the Indian Constitution reposed their faith in the judiciary as the custodian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights of the citizens.

Need of Free and Fair judiciary system

Indians have traditionally been proud of the independent character of their judiciary and the rule of law that it helps to secure. However, this view is becoming increasingly belied by the facts on the ground, particularly in some parts of India. Judges who hold a different viewpoint are suffering persecution and hounding which has led some to even give up their positions in the judiciary.

The judiciary has a direct impact on the lives of people in India every day. The judges decide on cases of rape, murder, dowry deaths, road accidents, and divorce. There have been instances where the police have refused to register cases or harassed victims. There are examples of victims being pressured by influential people to withdraw their complaints.

A fair and independent judicial branch is a cornerstone of our democratic system of government. An independent judicial branch is not an end in itself, but a means of ensuring the rule of law, since only by being free from outside influences can judges decide cases on the law and facts alone.

Charges laid against Indian judiciary

1. The first charge made is that “the court has refused to do timely hearings of cases that go to the heart of the institutional integrity of a democracy”. The author cites the example of the electoral bonds case.
2. The second criticism made by the author has been regarding the action taken by the investigating agency in the Elgar Parishad case, wherein several arrests were made after careful consideration of the available evidence.
3. The third charge he makes against the judiciary is scurrilous. He states in the context of “love jihad”, that “the judiciary abets legitimising this newest assault on liberty”.
4. The fourth charge that the author makes against the incumbent Chief Justice of India is that he has been selective in his approach and cites the example of Arnab Goswami and an accused journalist charged under serious provisions of the UAPA Act.

Why the charges laid against judiciary are not true?

Judiciary has effectively Protected Individuals Liberty: Due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.

Judiciary has effectively Protected the Freedom from arrest: Teltumbde was granted interim protection from arrest by the Bombay High Court. These are reflective of the fact that the Supreme Court has always come to the rescue of citizens.

Judiciary has effectively Protected right to privacy: Historic verdicts by the SC such as nine judges held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right and it held that the CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.

Judiciary has always Ensured justice: For example, Umar Khalid though a student he has been probed for his role in the Delhi riots for allegedly trying to incite violence during the Delhi riots, which cost more than 50 lives.

Judiciary has effectively Protected individuals freedom and choice: The Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K M (Hadiya case) observed that Hadiya, being a 24-year-old adult, had the power to make her own decisions, and the court could not compel her to go to her father or husband against her will.

Judiciary has effectively Protected individuals from malafide prosecution: Arnab goswami case prima facie appears to be a case of malafide prosecution. The Supreme Court rightly remarked that the accused should pursue his remedy before the high court.