Not a day passes without the courts, especially the Supreme Court, telling some government or the other how to do its job when it is far from clear that the judiciary is doing its own job even passably well. With over 4.4 crore cases pending in courts, the Supreme Court should be the last one taking on a high moral tone while admonishing state and central governments for their lapses.



Yesterday (11 May), the Supreme Court was at it again, directing the centre to create a new standardised, rules-based framework for declaring and dealing with drought-like situations. It also ordered the setting up of a disaster mitigation fund within three months. These orders were passed on a public interest litigation filed by Swaraj Abhiyan, of which ex-AAP politician Yogendra Yadav is a leading light.

While it is no one’s case that we are handling the distress involved in droughts well, is it the Supreme Court’s job to dictate how this is to be done? Isn’t it enough for it to direct government to act fast, instead of telling them how to do their jobs? The court decried state governments’ “ostrich-like” attitude in dealing with drought-hit farmers who were among the vulnerable sections of society, and promised even more directives in the coming week.

Little wonder, a livid Arun Jaitley hit out at the courts for meddling with the powers of the executive and the legislature. “Step by step, brick by brick, the edifice of India’s legislature is being destroyed,” he noted, and pointed out that courts are now interfering even with budgets. Mint quotes Jaitley further: “We have the National Disaster Response Fund and the State Disaster Response Fund and now we are being asked to create a third fund. The appropriation bill is being passed. Now outside this appropriation bill, we are being told to create this fund. How will I do that? India’s budget-making is being subject to judicial review.”

Brilliantly put. But he now needs to take this sentiment from words to action.

Jaitley’s anguish over the court’s meddlesome nature found cross-party support, with even opposition members thumping their desks. So maybe this is the right time for the legislature to send the judiciary a message to lay off.

The message that needs to go out from parliament, preferably unanimously, is a resolution calling on the judiciary to refrain from making laws or forcing budgetary allocations that are not part of its brief.

A resolution could be framed along these lines.

“This House expresses deep concern over the increasing tendency of the judiciary to make laws and impose directions that are solely within the domain of the executive or the legislature. We strongly urge the judiciary to refrain from breaching constitutional provisions that give the legislature, the judiciary and the executive their own exclusive domains. The judiciary’s job is to interpret the law, and protect basic constitutional rights, and not write the laws themselves. In the interests of promoting constitutionalism, and healthy relations between legislature and judiciary, we hope the judiciary will stay within the bounds imposed on it by the constitution, and not transgress into areas reserved for the executive or the legislature.”

Such a resolution cannot be passed without multi-party support, which may or may not be forthcoming. But Jaitley, given that he has friends across the political divide, is the right man to get this resolution moved and enacted.

It is time for India’s elected representatives to show some spine in standing up to bullying and hectoring by the judiciary. This is one case where there is hidden unanimity among legislators and governments, but no outward show of solidarity due to the adversarial nature of Indian politics.

Maybe, if Jaitley can get this done, he can set the tone for better cross-party political ties despite differences over policy.