In a charged debate in the Supreme Court on Thursday, the Centre, through attorney-general KK Venugopal , said the top court has “acquired vast powers”, and that it has become the “world’s most powerful court”.He also said the SC had added “at least 30 new rights” to the fundamental rights already enshrined in the Constitution Responding equally strongly, Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, “This court has vast powers to do substantive justice. We have to strike a balance in every case. We understand that we cannot cross the lakshman rekha.” And Justice DY Chandrachud said the court “cannot shut its eyes” in matters of “social welfare”.Speaking before a five-judge bench, and on the issue of whether parliamentary reports can be used in court proceedings, A-G said, emphasising his point of ‘judicial overreach’, that the court’s ban on highway liquor vends has cost 100,000 jobs.The court responded to A-G’s argument by saying that on the liquor ban, it was only enforcing a surface transport ministry rule designed to reduce road fatalities.The case before the SC is a petition demanding compensation from pharma companies that conducted drug trials. The companies have argued a parliamentary committee report that criticises them cannot be used in court proceedings, while the petitioners have demanded that the report be considered.Venugopal said the court should refrain from examining any parliamentary reports on the ground that such reports involved privileges of MPs.He further said the court was getting into legislating, a domain earmarked by the Constitution for Parliament , instead of adhering to its defined role of acting as the custodian of the Constitution.“You are exercising Article 142 powers (extraordinary powers which allow the court to do complete justice) which at times encroach into the powers of the legislature,” A-G said. In this context, he also cited the manner in which the court has over the years extended the ambit of Article 21, the right to life and liberty, enshrined in the Constitution to guarantee a host of other rights such as right to clean air, jobs, education et al.“You have read into Article 21 at least 30 other rights. There is no way these can be enforced for another 50 years,” he said. The government of the day, he said, had chosen to accept all orders as it does not want a confrontation with the judiciary. Justice Chandrachud immediately contested the arguments.“It’s your own guidelines sent to the states,” CJI said, referring to A-G’s arguments on the liquor ban. “We have only asked you and the states to implement these guidelines, taking note of the fact that India is slowly becoming the accident capital of the world.”Chandrachud also demanded to know if the top court should “shut its eyes when something was in public domain or was important for social welfare”. “Can this court say we will not look into it though it is a matter of concern?”He cited a hypothetical example, saying that if a parliamentary panel recommends that the time period for medical termination of pregnancies be extended from the current 20 weeks to 25 weeks, can the court not take note of it if the government fails to act on it — especially when it is a welfare legislation.A-G then conceded that the court could interfere in areas such as preserving the ecology and environment.Justice Chandrachud praised fellow Justice AK Sikri for his recent order banning sale of crackers in Delhi-NCR till November 1, another court decision widely criticised for its dampening effect on trade and business. “The cracker sale ban order ensured that we could breathe fresh air even after Diwali,” Justice Chandrachud said, turning to Justice Sikri who was sitting next to him.Justice Chandrachud, who had earlier wondered whether the court could mandate that people stand up for the national anthem in movie theatres to prove their patriotism, also hit back at the government, saying: “All rights can be enforced.If the government has not enforced them, then it is an admission of failure on your part.” CJI then intervened in the debate, saying the court only uses its Article 142 powers to issue guidelines or urge Parliament to make a law when there are gaps in legislation.