The CJI has underlined the need for all State organs to honour the constitutional mandate
Chief Justice of India NV Ramana put his finger on a sensitive nerve — the judiciary-executive confrontation as well as judicial activism that has landed both democratic institutions in avoidable controversies in recent times. Much to his chagrin, perhaps, the media led the reports by focusing on the word “tyranny” that he used while delivering the 17th Justice PD Desai Memorial Trust Lecture on the subject of “Rule of Law”. To quote him: “It has always been well recognised that the mere right to change the ruler, once every few years, by itself need not be a guarantee against tyranny…” He was at that point talking about the rule of law, accountability of institutions and democratic processes but did not elaborate further on the word in question. The word simply hangs there, without any peg. If the media was attracted to it, it refrained from coming to any conclusion, political or otherwise. The Chief Justice made one reference to the executive’s role when in the context of the citizens doing their job of electing their representatives, “…it is now the turn of those who are manning the key organs of the State to ponder if they are living up to the constitutional mandate”. He justly refrained from evaluating the role of the executive, but did suggest introspection to “at least begin the process of analysing what we did right, and where we went wrong”.
Without referring to specific instances during the second wave of the pandemic when courts challenged and questioned the executive on measures for the underprivileged sections, Justice Ramana clarified where he stood on the issue by observing, “we necessarily have to pause and ask ourselves, as to what extent we have used the rule of law to ensure protection to and welfare of all of our people”. The Chief Justice, however, balanced the issue by obliquely responding to general criticism that the judiciary was stepping across the line into activism when confronting the executive on key issues. He cautioned the judges against being “swayed by the emotional pitch of public opinion”, telling them that the “noise thus amplified (on social media platforms) is not necessarily reflective of what is right and what the majority believes in”. Constitutional experts have repeatedly said that the judiciary and the executive should work on a compromise basis to uphold their separation of powers without the executive undermining the judiciary and the latter avoiding excessive interference. Why then did the Chief Justice say that the “importance of the judiciary should not blind us to the fact that the responsibility of safeguarding constitutionalism lies not just on the courts”? He followed it up by referring to how limited the scope of judicial action is by observing that “this limitation calls for other organs to assume responsibilities of upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice in the first place, with the judiciary acting as an important check”. He sent his message across.