The PM and the Judiciary

 

 

 

 

 

You don`t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

 

 

When the prime minister of India tells the judiciary to mind its own business and not trespass on others` territory, you`d think all our major newspapers would take note, right? Wrong, because only four - The Telegraph, The Indian Express, The Pioneer and the Business Standard did.

 

The issue has many dimensions, of course and no one expects a mere 400-550 words to do full justice to it. Nevertheless, the readers have a right to expect a comment. Too many editors failed them. I can`t help wondering why.

 

But never mind those sleepy Joes. The best edit was in The Telegraph. It caught the central point admirably well, namely, that " the seeds of the controversy are actually embedded in the Constitution itself."

 

The edit went on to point out how although our political system was based on the English ( Westminster ) model, our Constitution has tended to contradict itself. "In Great Britain , the sovereignty of parliament was never challenged by the judiciary, which actually acted to protect the rights of parliament and the individual from attacks by the monarchy... In India, some of the amendments to the Constitution have, in fact, encroached on individual rights and the judiciary has rushed in to protect those rights."  

 

The Pioneer developed that point further. " Mr Singh`s remarks they should be seen against the backdrop of the recent Supreme Court order staying the implementation of the policy to reserve 27 per cent seats for OBC students in Union Government-funded institutions... Before that order, the Supreme Court ruled that any law placed under the Constitution`s Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, providing immunity from legal challenges, are subject to judicial scrutiny if they violate fundamental rights. This virtually stripped the Union Government of the constitutional protection that has been abused, for the explicit purpose of preventing politically-motivated policy from being challenged in court.. it is difficult to support Mr Singh`s contention..."

 

The Business Standard gave a small sermon on history, justice and equity. "In the final analysis it is a matter of good judgement which, in the context of the major institutions of governance, tends to evolve slowly. Then it got down to the immediate issue at hand. "The Prime Minister`s advice is that invoking mandamus is a better alternative, which it certainly is. However, judges have been encouraged to overstep the line largely because they have public sanction; impatience and frustration with the quality of governance have reached levels where all too often people look to the judiciary for help. That does not make it good in principle."

 

The Indian Express went right off the track. It talked about a speech delivered by a former chief justice of India in which he said that the judiciary was over-reaching. That may well be so, but what about what the prime minister said? The editor clearly felt that having written one edit on the topic, it was too much to write another, never mind that it was the prime minister and not a retired judge speaking.

 

Talk about  editorial judgement!