The Supreme Court's Intervention Is Unlikely To Break The Impasse
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-01-12 09:58:04
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
Has the Supreme Court exceeded its constitutional duty in staying the farm laws and forming a committee to hold talks to resolve the impasse between the Centre and the farm unions? While this correspondent has always believed that the charge of judicial overreach leveled against the judiciary was not correct as courts are the last resort for the common man to get redress against executive overreach, one feels that the present action of the apex court falls in the domain of judicial overreach.
One says this because laws made in Parliament, unless they fall foul of the Constitution (and which can be decided only when the Supreme Court examines their constitutional validity, which in the instant case it did not), cannot be otherwise suspended, stayed or quashed by the Supreme Court. The legislature enacts laws and the courts are the watchdogs of ensuring that such laws are within the parameters prescribed by the Constitution. The courts have no say in influencing public policy, which in the instant case are trying to do.
As for the committee, one was of the view that a court appointed and monitored committee would have helped in solving the impasse when the court first expressed the opinion to form such a committee. But one had to revise one's opinion after the farm unions rejected the suggestion of the court. Hence, one is sure that the committee formed by the court will not achieve desired results.
The farm unions have already said that staying the laws is no solution. They are adamant on getting them repealed in entirety. Under these circumstances, a political solution is best. The apex court could have examined the constitutional validity of the new laws and pronounced judgment on that. In doing what it did, it might have queered the pitch further, although providing the Centre some room to wriggle out of the messy situation. It is not likely that the farmers will end their agitation after this order, which was the main intention of the court.
