THE manner in which the new Chief Justice of India threw out a bunch of public interest petitions on Monday, including some that had been entertained by his predecessor, suggests that public- minded citizens who have looked at the higher judiciary as the institution of last refuge are in for a disappointment during his tenure, notwithstanding his integrity.
It is understandable for Justice Kapadia to take a strict view of frivolous or motivated public interest litigation ( PILs). But this is not the same as having a conservative approach on genuine PILs — which may concern millions of human lives — where the courts refuse to deal with any matter that is, strictly speaking, outside the domain of judicial intervention.
This has the potential to subvert the process of judicial activism that was initiated after PILs came into being in the 80s. There is no doubt a danger of courts overreaching themselves when they resort to activism, but let us also accept that PILs have made the authorities more accountable and contributed to public good over the years.
Justice Kapadia's stance that courts cannot interfere in matters of policy and governance would have been justifiable were the other organs of the state doing their job well.
This is not the case. In fact, one reason why governments have, somewhat reluctantly, bowed before the authority of courts in the recent past is that they are aware that they have not lived up to their political mandate, and the people of the country know this.
If Justice Kapadia wants to let go of this moral check that the higher judiciary has exerted over governments, it is his prerogative, but he must know that he will not be doing the people of India a great favour.
