Supreme Court's Unimplementable Orders

Judicial activism could upset the separation of powers and affect the dignity of the judiciary, as orders are either being ignored or proving to be unimplementable.

- Soni Mishra

A few months ago, sparks flew in the Supreme Court when Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said some of the court’s decisions were adversely impacting governance, causing damage to the economy and making people lose their livelihoods. “Not everything is negative, but the court should exercise restraint while dealing with public interest litigations,” Venugopal told a bench headed by Justice Madan B. Lokur, which was hearing a petition on the condition of prison inmates.

Lokur, a specialist on PILs pertaining to social justice, responded, “Through orders of this court, you have got thousands of crores in cases like mining, construction work. What more do we do? Rest assured that Article 21 [right to life and liberty] is here to stay and we will uphold it.”

The debate had been set off by a suggestion from the bench that a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge be set up to monitor prison reforms. The government counsel called it an attempt by the court to indulge in policy-making, a domain of the executive. The bench, however, did form a panel headed by retired justice Amitava Roy for the purpose.

Lokur was again at the centre of a heated debate as a two-judge bench headed by him ruled that in view of air pollution assuming dangerous proportions, only ‘green’ crackers be burst during Diwali, and also restricted the time for fireworks to two hours. While environment-conscious quarters welcomed the order, there was immense criticism of the decision, and judiciary watchers wondered whether it would not have been better for the court to direct the government to take necessary measures. “It would have been wiser to direct the government to resort to such steps as were necessary to minimise pollution,” said former Supreme Court judge K.T. Thomas.