NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday deprecated the tendency of governments to accuse the judiciary for encroaching upon the domain of the executive and the legislature by passing orders for protection of marginalised section of society through PILs.
The top court said that the governments do this to cover up their own failures in providing social justice to the people.
Taking the governments head on for their criticism against the judiciary for entertaining PILs, a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta said that the concept of public interest litigation has become a potent and very effective force to bring about immense social change through interventions made and directions issued by the apex court.
“During the last several decades, PILs have compelled this court to consider issues relating to the environment, social justice, violation of
human rights and disregard for Article 21 of the Constitution; either because of an absence of governance due to the failure of the state to faithfully and sincerely implement laws enacted by Parliament or due to mis-governance by the state, that is, the central government, the state governments and Union Territory Administrations leading to rampant illegalities,” the bench said.
“In recent times, usually and regrettably, the state has chosen to challenge the idea of PIL or denigrate it by chanting the mantra of
judicial activism or separation of powers. In most cases, these mantras are nothing but a fig leaf to cover the failure of the state to recognise the existence of the rule of law and the need for providing social justice to the people of the country, as stated in the Preamble to our Constitution. There must be a realization that PIL has given a voice to millions of marginalized sections of society, women and children,” Justice Lokur, who wrote the judgment, said.
The court passed the observation while delivering a verdict on a PIL on prison reform and appointed a three-member committee headed by its retired judge Amitava Roy to recommend measures to provide reformatory environment along with basic facilities to prisoners to lead a dignified life within jail. The court entrusted the task to the committee to examine 1,382 prisons in the country and file a comprehensive report on improving living conditions there for convicted and under-trial prisoners and to reduce overcrowding in jails.
The committee, also comprising Inspector General of Police, Bureau of Police Research and Development Director General (Prisons)
Tihar Jail, is to file its report within a year and would also explore the option of setting up of an open prison.
Hailing the role of PIL in protecting the fundamental rights of people, particularly that of the poor and the deprived sections of society, Justice Lokur said that PIL is one of the most important contributions of India to jurisprudence which is now being adopted by other countries too.
The bench, however, accepted that there is also some misuse of PIL and the court had exceeded its jurisdiction, but said, “it must be emphasised that wherever this court might have exceeded its jurisdiction, it has always been in the interest of the people of the country prompted by administrative mis-governance or absence of governance. There are, therefore, occasional transgressions on both sides, but that cannot take away from the significance of public interest litigation as a non-adversarial source of righting some wrongs and encouraging social change through accountability and, in cases, transparency”.
The court’s observation assumes significance in view of the recent spat between Justice Lokur and Attorney General K K Venugopal in August while hearing a PIL. The top law officer had told the bench that judiciary must exercise self restraint while entertaining PILs and raised question on judiciary donning the mantle for solving all the ills that plagued the country. But the court, however, reminded the Centre how abjectly it had failed in implementing the law framed by Parliament.
“Rest assured that Article 21 (right to life and liberty) would remain there in the Constitution,” Justice Lokur had said, indicating that court would not remain a mute spectator of when rights of people were being violated and funds meant for the poor and disadvantaged is being misused. “We are bound to question the authorities in such cases,” he had said.
