Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan for Judicial Intervention

'Where does common man go when executive fails?'
13 Jun 2008, 0053 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN


NEW DELHI: Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan on Thursday stepped out to strongly defend the conduct of the judiciary, saying if its interventions annoyed other organs of the state, so be it.

"The only function of the court is to protect the rights of the people, and all its actions are directed to further this function," CJI Balakrishnan said in comments that acquire significance in the wake of the criticism by the executive and the legislature that the judiciary was meddling in businesses which belonged to others' domain.

"...Before criticizing the court, which serves as the whip hand of the people towards any wrong being done by the state, other organs of governance must make sure their conduct is exemplary... so as to deserve the trust of the people," he said.

He was responding to questions from TOI on the role of the judiciary — especially the Supreme Court — in matters of public interest, the criticism it drew and the role it sees itself playing in view of the challenges, from poverty to lawlessness, facing the country.

Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan's assertiveness to defend the conduct of judiciary may appear important also because he had initially appeared to take in his stride the criticism that the top court attracted whenever it entertained PILs.

In a democracy, he said, people were paramount and it was the inherent duty of the executive, legislature and judiciary to perform meaningful roles in making the life of the common man better.

Giving an example, the CJI said that in many instances, people were promised better amenities, towards which significant amounts of money were spent, but many of those promises were never fulfiled and on occasions, private players were seen to have taken undue benefit of these.

"Given these circumstances, it is incumbent on the Supreme Court to take necessary steps to alleviate the dismal conditions of the people, and pay particular attention to the dismally depressed," he said, referring to the apex court as the "doyen of public interest litigation".

On many occasions, the Supreme Court has faced criticism for "usurping" the power of the executive, he said and asked: "What is most often overlooked by all critics is the fact that where is the common man to go when the executive fails to perform its duties properly?" As a power regulator, he said, the SC has two functions — first, to limit government arbitrariness and power abuse; and secondly, to make the government more rational and its policies more intelligent.

"PIL is one of the many innovations that give life to the Supreme Court being the bulwark for maintenance of democracy and a bastion of civil liberties," he said and termed PIL a potent instrument of social justice to bring about equality.

Taking note of the argument that the apex court should exercise restraint and not violate the constitutional demarcation, he said the court, before entertaining PILs, undertakes strict scrutiny of each of them and the relevance and importance of the issues raised. "Directions are given only when it is absolutely necessary," he said.

The argument for the apex court exercising restraint and staying within limits failed to recognise "the constant failures of governance taking place at the hands of the other organs of the state, and that it is the function of the court to check, balance and correct any failure arising out of any other state organ", the CJI said.

Balakrishnan said right to life of every citizen did not mean animal existence but a fruitful living, which could come only if they enjoy their fundamental rights — such as living in a healthy, clean and safe environment; compulsory education and access to basic amenities of life.

On various occasions, the state failed to exercise its duty of providing these rights to the people who often had to suffer for no fault of theirs. At these junctures, "it becomes an imminent necessity for the Supreme Court to intervene in a timely manner and curtail the violation of fundamental rights, and further its duty to protect the rights of the people", he said.

"It is improper, therefore, to accuse the court of taking any unfair advantage of this instrument (PIL) to further any vested interest," he said.

To preserve the supremacy of the Constitution — from which flows the fundamental rights to equality, speech and life — the role of the courts in today's world has become more onerous and it could help little if it is criticized for giving relief to people, the CJI said.

"The supremacy of the Constitution can be preserved in no other way except through the courts that would step forth and declare all acts 'contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution' void," he added.