In the case of Nupur Sharma, the unwarranted statements of two Supreme Court judges have created a new awareness of the judiciary in the country. This is the first time that not only ordinary citizens across the country, lawyers from almost every court have made statements against the two judges who have held Nupur Sharma responsible for the Udaipur murder. While the common man, the media and lawyers in general are afraid to react to any comments from Supreme Court judges. Before the advent of social media, the common man kept silent even after taking a sip of blood, considering any comment from the Supreme Court wrong.
The administration and elected governments should work in accordance with the constitution, the responsibility for overseeing it lies with the Supreme Court, the governor and the president, but the Supreme Court, the governor and the president should work with in accordance with the constitution, it would be the responsibility of the common citizens of the country to monitor it. Retired judges and bureaucrats can play an important role in this. But so far many former judges and bureaucrats used to shut up even after knowing everything because some lobbies related to political ideology are so effective in the judiciary and bureaucracy that fair people consider it best to shut up.
Remember the time of the exodus of Hindus to Kashmir when they went to the Supreme Court to intervene. The attitude of that Supreme Court was negative. The court did not intervene to stop the exodus. All petitions that were filed were mercilessly rejected. Along with the common man, many judges, former judges and bureaucrats were upset by this attitude of the Supreme Court but did not speak out for fear that their voices might be considered a defamation of the court. After changing the direction of the wind in the country, his tongue has also come to life and also raises his voice along with the common man.
The job of the courts is to do justice in accordance with the constitution and the law, the government and the administration are in charge of maintaining the law and order. Who would understand it better than a Supreme Court judge? But these two judges made the mistake of not understanding it. His response was widespread. In addition to social media, more than a dozen retired judges from the country, dozens of retired IAS and IPS officers and well-known personalities have written a letter to the Supreme Court president against these two Supreme Court judges, saying that the democracy and constitution of any country will remain intact until then, provided that all its electors fulfill their functions within the limits laid down in the Constitution. These two judges have crossed their Lakshman Rekha, so the whole country is in shock. That is why he was forced to write this letter.
Limits of the Supreme Court
The independence and impartiality of the judiciary were widely debated in the Constituent Assembly. In addition, there was a wide-ranging debate on the powers of the Supreme Court and the possibilities for judicial review. In this debate it was decided that – “The Supreme Court will be the guardian and decisive interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court will be the guardian of the fundamental rights of citizens. It will be the supreme body for interpreting the common laws of the country. It will be in civil and criminal matters. Supreme Court of Appeals. To defend the supremacy of the Constitution, the Supreme Court must be an impartial and independent authority to resolve disputes between the Center and the States. To ensure that power judicial as an institution remains strong It must be made free from any kind of political pressure and influence “.
The Supreme Court has also given many historic decisions, complying with the limits set by those responsible for the Constitution in the Supreme Court. This includes Indira Gandhi’s decision to cancel Lok Sabha’s membership in 1975. But there are some cases where the Supreme Court has acted under external pressure. The first instance is on September 7, 2014, when Indira Jaising stopped the hanging on September 12 of Surendra Koli, who sexually abused and murdered children during a hearing until midnight. The second case is from July 29, 2015, when a lobby of lawyers pressured the president of justice to open the court after midnight to stop the hanging of Yakub Memon, responsible for the Bombay bombings. Similarly, on May 16, 2018, the Congress of Karnataka Pradesh and the JD (S) forced political pressure to open the doors of the court at midnight as they wanted the governor to stop the swearing in of Yeddyurappa as chief minister the next morning.
These three examples are before you when the Supreme Court acted under pressure from lawyers and under political influence when not expected. The Constituent Assembly had made it clear that the Supreme Court would function without any pressure or influence. Now, this is a clear example, when two Supreme Court judges, Judge Pardiwala and Judge Surya Kant, have made political comments, perhaps that is why this unwanted comment from the Supreme Court was also opposed across the country. and perhaps that is why the country’s former judges, former IAS and 117 dignitaries, including IPS, have also strongly opposed these unwanted remarks.
question about the coliseum system
In this situation, the biggest issue now is to free the judiciary from familiarity and the Colosseum. With a 1993 decision during Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, the Supreme Court had taken over the decision to appoint the judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. In 1998, when the president sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on the appointment of judges, the Supreme Court also removed the president’s powers. After that, the MoP (Memorandum of Procedure) was signed between the judiciary and the government for the appointment of Supreme Court judges. The role of the government and even the president in appointing judges has since ended.
The Narendra Modi government had passed a law in 2014 to create a National Judicial Appointments Commission to appoint judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court, but this law was challenged in the Supreme Court, calling it a threat. for judicial autonomy. The Constitutional Court in 2015 declared that judicial appointments were part of the basic structure of the Constitution linking judicial appointments with the autonomy of the judiciary and repealed the NJAC Act.
If the Modi government had wanted it, it could have abolished the rights of the Colosseum by getting this law passed by Parliament as a constitutional amendment, but Congress, which supported the bill in 2014, repealed it in 2015 and refused to approve it again. Since then the Modi government has been unable to do anything. Now there is atmosphere in the country, there is also great support in Parliament. In this environment, this is an opportunity for the Modi government in the Center when it can take the initiative to keep the judiciary free from being influenced by political prejudice. The Modi government should take the initiative to reform a commission for the appointment of judges.
Blasfemy asks, not Nupur Sharma, I Lord
summary in English
accountability of the judiciary to the public in India