Battle between equals!

The recent tiff between the judiciary and the legislature, and to that effect, the executive, brings to fore the increasing tensions between the two wings of governance. On one hand, where the executive is responsible and accountable to the legislature on a daily basis, the legislature is accountable to the people only once in 5 years, or if the people's luck favours them, earlier than that. The people nowadays are peeved at the manner in which the legislature, and by implication, the executive, is running the country. The judiciary, as a consequence of its role as the guardian of the Constitution, is and has been compelled to intervene on the entreaties of the People in the very act of governance of the State.

Very recently, when the Bombay High Court passed its landmark judgement on the Mumbai Mill Lands Case, wherein it castigated both the Government of Maharashtra and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation for having abdicated their responsibilities towards providing low-cost housing facilities, open spaces, and liveable conditions to the people of the city of Mumbai, the activism of the judiciary was starkly illustrated. On the same day, nearly 17 articles were found in the Times of India regarding some direction from the courts to the Executive on matters strictly non-judicial. The judgement of the Supreme Court of India regarding the rights of the heirs of a tenant to the tenancy also cleared up the air regarding the most vexing issue, which often became a major election-time concern, yielding precious votes. That the heirs of a tenant cannot by implication claim inheritance of the tenancy could have been stated even by a ordinary citizen, and the judges shouldn't have been bothered, but the fact remains, when you have such a spineless legislature, and your executive is derived from such an assemblage, your only recourse can by the judiciary.

And yet, the fact that the judiciary has to resort to such activism doesn't call for celebration. True, this indicates that our democracy is vibrant, that it is responsive to the needs of the People, and that not all hope is lost. But, in truth, attempts should be made to ensure that the judiciary can concentrate on matters more attuned to their duties, as indicated in the Constitution. Cases are pending in the highest court of the land for the last 20 years, and in lower courts for more than five decades. These cases may not be of so much political significance, maybe even their outcome may not change the course of the nation's history, but for the plaintiff and the defendant, the case is all that matters. These cases should be dealt with first, and that the judiciary also acknowledges this, implies the serious need for the Executive and the Legislature to get their act together.

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, R.C. Lahoti had, in one of his press comments, remarked that the Courts weren't subservient to any of the arms of the State; rather they were equal partners in the governance of the State. Furthermore, in a most bitter comment on the conflict between the judiciary and the Executive-Legislature combine, he remarked that if the combine so much as despised the judiciary's manner of working, they should close down the courts, and abrogate the duties of the same. And this is saddening. One of the few arms of the State which are actually working is being bullied into replicating the inefficiency of the laggards. Although I have titled this blog as a battle between equals, that the combatants are equals only in name is clear. Only the victor will be neither, for the People need a responsive Judiciary as also a responsible Executive-Legislature. One prays that this battle end in a draw, a mature draw.