In a striking address to the judiciary, President Draupadi Murmu recently underscored the inefficacies in delivering justice to the common people, emphasising the need for a mechanism to ensure that judicial outcomes are implemented effectively. She very pointedly said,” Think of the people in jail. Think of those poor people who have been imprisoned for years for petty crimes. They don’t know the Preamble of the Constitution, or their fundamental rights or fundamental duties. No one is thinking about them. Their family members do not have the courage to rescue them, because, in contesting legal battle, they have to sell their house, farmland & even the utensils of their household for lawyer fees & allied expenses. This statement especially comes to mind amidst growing concerns over judicial overreach and activism, where the line between interpreting laws “selectively” and making them seems increasingly blurred.
The case of Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi’s Chief Minister, presents a stark illustration of the challenges and potential pitfalls of the Indian judicial system when it intersects with political processes. Despite facing serious allegations, backed by solid evidence, Kejriwal was granted bail, primarily to enable his participation in an upcoming election campaign. This decision by the judiciary has sparked debates about its implications on the fairness and integrity of legal proceedings, especially when high-profile political figures are involved.
The situation raises a critical question: does granting bail for election campaigning set a precarious precedent? This scenario has now opened up a “Pandora’s box,” where individuals facing criminal charges are seek similar concessions under the guise of political engagement. The case of Khalistani Separatist – Terrorist Amritpal Singh comes to the forefront, where under the guise of campaigning he seeks bail to preach hatred and divisiness into the Indian society. This dangerous precedent can be abused by terrorists and criminals alike masquerading as political campaigning. Such developments could undermine the credibility and authority of the judicial system, making it appear susceptible to manipulation by political agendas. The essential balance between upholding democratic processes and ensuring judicial integrity seems to be at risk, suggesting a need for a more stringent regulatory framework to govern such intersections of law and politics.
This case exemplifies a broader concern about judicial overreach and activism, where the judiciary’s decisions could have unintended consequences on the political landscape and public perception of justice, or rather above the parliament & national interests.
The mysterious absence of Raghav Chaddha, who is allegedly currently in London, adds an intriguing twist to the ongoing political narrative. Rumours circulate that Chaddha might be engaged in financial activities related to Arvind Kejriwal’s political campaigns, potentially involving the management of significant funds, especially him being the treasurer of AAP. These allegations, though unconfirmed, raise serious questions about the potential for corruption, financial irregularities and the misuse of political power. The need for a thorough and transparent investigation into these claims is crucial to ensure that political financing remains above board and that all activities are conducted within the bounds of the law, thereby preserving the integrity of political processes and public trust.
The overarching theme of judicial overreach and activism, as noted by the Hon. President Smt. Draupadi Murmu, challenges the democratic fabric of our nation. By stepping beyond their traditional roles, some judicial entities risk transforming from protectors of civil liberties to alleged dictators creating their own narratives & ecosystem over and above the laws enacted by the parliament & national interest. This shift not only undermines the public’s trust in judicial processes but also threatens the principles laid down by the founding fathers of our democratic republic.
As we reflect on these developments, it is crucial to remember the vital balance required in the powers accorded to our judicial systems. The safeguarding of civil liberties must not evolve into an overreach that distorts justice and equity. To ensure the judiciary remains a true pillar of democracy, it must adhere strictly to its role—interpreting & not dictating the law. Thus, the real test for our judiciary and political leaders alike is to restore faith in these institutions, ensuring they operate transparently and justly, in true service to the common man.
Comments