Notes From Nowhere

There is a difference between criticising a judgment and attributing motives
to judge(s) for the judgment(s). The contempt of court, in theory and practice,
as they are now, need to be reformulated. Many have written critical
pieces about judgments and some of the best critiques of the judgments have
been by academics like Upendra Baxi. Recently Ramaswamy Iyer had written
an article in EPW raising some questions about the judicial activism. In my
view Roy does not make efforts to write well meaning and informed critiques
and her observations often do not go beyond rhetoric.

In many occassions the Parliament had passed bills to nullify the judgments
given by courts including Supreme Court. Roy is silent on this. When the
Supreme Court had upheld the principle of equality by negating quotas/
reservations in promotions and super speciality courses what had been
the reactions from the political class. They brought an amendment to
give reservations in promotions. The Supreme Court has recently
heard final arguments in various cases on the question of caste based
reservations in promotions. Roy thus gives a false picture about the
powers of the Court and its role. What she has forgotten is that NBA
approached the court to stall the project and requested a rethink of
the project. Even as they were mobilizing people against the project
NBA tried to use all the possible legal options including going to
court, to stop/stall the project. M.C.Mehta had used PIL in many
cases and he had used them effectively. Supreme Court at one
time encouraged PIL and gave PIL respectability and legitimacy.
It used PIL to give some remarkable verdicts, verdicts that broadended
the rights of the citizens, reprimanded the State for its failures, helped
the poor and labor. Even now PIL is used effectively by some. Although
the heydays of PIL seem to be over, PIL is here to stay.

Regarding the powers of the Parliament, The Supreme Court had to
intervene, to tell the Parliament that it had no powers to undermine
or modify the basic structure of the Constitution. Had there been no
judicial intervention the political class would have made Constitution
as tool in their hands to protect their vested interests and to further
their political agendas.

In short Roys may come and go, after basking in glories, borrowed
or otherwise but Supreme Court and the Constitution would be there,
for citizens of this country as beacons of hope. The Court might not
always give us what we want, may even give what we detest most,
but we all including careless and silly critics like Roy need the Supreme
Court.

I think I have given more than enough importance to Roy and the
interview. Let me move on.