Bangalore, Oct 18 (UNI) Judicial activism, which is interpreted by some frustrated elements as 'Judicial Tyranny', had in fact paid rich dividends in the country and it was being carried out by the courts purely as a legal process to sub-serve societal and public interest, Chhattisgarh High Court Chief Justice S R Nayak has said.
Speaking at a seminar on "Judicial Activism or Judicial Tyranny", organised by the Karnataka High Court as part of his Golden Jubilee Celebrations here yesterday, Mr Justice Nayak said the courts rejecting the recent trend of unscrupulous persons abusing the process of law under the grab of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Interest Litigation (SIL) to sub-serve their own interest had resulted in indignation against the process of judicial activism.
''It is the solemn duty of the court to protect society from so-called protectors of the society and thus while entertaining PIL, the Court should be conscious and try to ascertain the bona fides of the petitioner. It should come out in the open whether the petitioner is really a public spirited person or approached the court to settle his ulterior score through legal process,'' he said.
Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent the law from crafty evasions. They must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it was against the social interest or public good, he said.
"Some feel that judicial activism had become judicial tyranny when they see that court in its new activist role has transgressed its legitimate role under the constitution. The activist role of judiciary by directing enactment of legislations to regulate inter-country adoption or laying guidelines against sexual harassment of working women is questioned by these people who ask how could unelected courts decide what the Constitution should contain. They feel that such power rest only with a representative body such as Parliament," he said.
He said judicial activism in recent times had become a controversial subject and it had drawn many critics and opponents, particularly from politicians and legislative bodies.
Citing the S R Bommai Vs Union Government case, Justice Nayak said the majority verdict of this case had demonstrated that President's satisfaction under Article 356 of the constitution was justiciable. The 'sign-mark' decision had made the Supreme Court of India very powerful among all Apex Courts in the world.
"It could be seen that activist role of the Constitutional Courts in India has undeniably sub-served the interest of the people of the country both in peace-time and war-time. It had acted like formidable majoritarian check on democracy, protected the freedoms and liberties of the people notwithstanding certain unexpected and unhealthy observations," he added.
UNI RS VK SB1359
Speaking at a seminar on "Judicial Activism or Judicial Tyranny", organised by the Karnataka High Court as part of his Golden Jubilee Celebrations here yesterday, Mr Justice Nayak said the courts rejecting the recent trend of unscrupulous persons abusing the process of law under the grab of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or Social Interest Litigation (SIL) to sub-serve their own interest had resulted in indignation against the process of judicial activism.
''It is the solemn duty of the court to protect society from so-called protectors of the society and thus while entertaining PIL, the Court should be conscious and try to ascertain the bona fides of the petitioner. It should come out in the open whether the petitioner is really a public spirited person or approached the court to settle his ulterior score through legal process,'' he said.
Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith and prevent the law from crafty evasions. They must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it was against the social interest or public good, he said.
"Some feel that judicial activism had become judicial tyranny when they see that court in its new activist role has transgressed its legitimate role under the constitution. The activist role of judiciary by directing enactment of legislations to regulate inter-country adoption or laying guidelines against sexual harassment of working women is questioned by these people who ask how could unelected courts decide what the Constitution should contain. They feel that such power rest only with a representative body such as Parliament," he said.
He said judicial activism in recent times had become a controversial subject and it had drawn many critics and opponents, particularly from politicians and legislative bodies.
Citing the S R Bommai Vs Union Government case, Justice Nayak said the majority verdict of this case had demonstrated that President's satisfaction under Article 356 of the constitution was justiciable. The 'sign-mark' decision had made the Supreme Court of India very powerful among all Apex Courts in the world.
"It could be seen that activist role of the Constitutional Courts in India has undeniably sub-served the interest of the people of the country both in peace-time and war-time. It had acted like formidable majoritarian check on democracy, protected the freedoms and liberties of the people notwithstanding certain unexpected and unhealthy observations," he added.
UNI RS VK SB1359
Oneindia Login