A Progressive Judgment

Constitutionalism and judicial duties were articulated accurately in this Supreme Court judgment penned by Justice NV Ramana. It is hoped that the judicial voice is heard by all organs of the State and representatives of the people

- Upendra Baxi

ON the eve of the 70th centenary of the Republic Day, a Supreme Court bench of Justices NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai revived faith in the constitutional ideals of liberty and dignity.

In Anuradha Bhasin (January 10, 2020), the Court describes J&K as a “land of inherent contradiction” torn between violence and “incredible beauty”. But it makes no judgements on “political propriety” of parliamentary law but carefully delineates its jural scope. And the tasks of doing justice although no less difficult than the political, is stated as that of balancing “security and liberty concerns so that the right to life is secured and enjoyed in the best possible manner”.

The Court did not invalidate the present orders under Section 144 CrPC and internet shutdown but laid down some criteria of validity for these. Critics may be right to express constitutional anxiety because experience shows that the negotiation of judicial labyrinth is very time-consuming in a citizen’s struggle to ensure constitutionality in State action. Even so, one hopes that the very enunciation of norms and standards will have a positive democratising effect. And we all must still await the final decision on the matter of constitutionality of the repeal of Article 370, yet to be heard by the Court.