01-12-2007, 06:16 AM
ToI editorial - neither here nor there..
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION...how/1100878.cms
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> The Supreme Court had quite a few run-ins with the legislature and executive last year. This year is proving to be no different.
The apex court and government are on a collision course over the composition of the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) that sanctions forest land for development.
Last week, government made its displeasure known over the court order staying constitution of the FAC. What was remarkable about government's response was the way the additional solicitor-general (ASG) argued it in court.
He bluntly advised the judges to keep to their turf and not step on the executive's toes. Not surprisingly, the court reacted strongly and termed the ASG's statements "blasphemous".
Confrontation between the court and executive is, of course, nothing new. The history of these collisions can be traced back to the 1950s when the Jawaharlal Nehru government tripped over the court's objections to land reform.
The government responded with the First Amendment and the creation of the Ninth Schedule, where legislation was kept out of the reach of judges.
Since then there have been periodic flare-ups. Beginning with the Golaknath case in 1967, the SC first developed what is known as the basic structure doctrine where it has taken the ultimate responsibility of defining the essence of the Constitution.
In the famous Keshavananda judgment, the court ruled that the 'basic structure' of the Constitution could not be tampered with.
Court-executive relations reached its nadir during Indira Gandhi's time when the court struck down a proposed constitutional amendment that prohibited the judiciary from deciding on the validity of contested elections.
No one wants a return to the days that led to a complete constitutional breakdown. The core issue is whether the SC is being too activist or not.
This has been raised on several occasions, including the recent controversy over demolitions in Delhi. There are no easy answers as to where to draw the line on the court's jurisdiction.
By its very nature the SC is composed of nominated judges who are meant to be above politics of the times. However, it cannot watch idly if mob rule threatens to subvert the Constitution.
The court, along with the legislature and executive, is part of a complex triangle where each player does not overstep its boundary. This is by no means an easy task.
But for the sake of good governance, the tensions within this tripartite relationship must be few and far between.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION...how/1100878.cms
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> The Supreme Court had quite a few run-ins with the legislature and executive last year. This year is proving to be no different.
The apex court and government are on a collision course over the composition of the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) that sanctions forest land for development.
Last week, government made its displeasure known over the court order staying constitution of the FAC. What was remarkable about government's response was the way the additional solicitor-general (ASG) argued it in court.
He bluntly advised the judges to keep to their turf and not step on the executive's toes. Not surprisingly, the court reacted strongly and termed the ASG's statements "blasphemous".
Confrontation between the court and executive is, of course, nothing new. The history of these collisions can be traced back to the 1950s when the Jawaharlal Nehru government tripped over the court's objections to land reform.
The government responded with the First Amendment and the creation of the Ninth Schedule, where legislation was kept out of the reach of judges.
Since then there have been periodic flare-ups. Beginning with the Golaknath case in 1967, the SC first developed what is known as the basic structure doctrine where it has taken the ultimate responsibility of defining the essence of the Constitution.
In the famous Keshavananda judgment, the court ruled that the 'basic structure' of the Constitution could not be tampered with.
Court-executive relations reached its nadir during Indira Gandhi's time when the court struck down a proposed constitutional amendment that prohibited the judiciary from deciding on the validity of contested elections.
No one wants a return to the days that led to a complete constitutional breakdown. The core issue is whether the SC is being too activist or not.
This has been raised on several occasions, including the recent controversy over demolitions in Delhi. There are no easy answers as to where to draw the line on the court's jurisdiction.
By its very nature the SC is composed of nominated judges who are meant to be above politics of the times. However, it cannot watch idly if mob rule threatens to subvert the Constitution.
The court, along with the legislature and executive, is part of a complex triangle where each player does not overstep its boundary. This is by no means an easy task.
But for the sake of good governance, the tensions within this tripartite relationship must be few and far between.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->