Topics Covered: Separation of powers between various organs, dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions.
Why Supreme Court’s ruling on farm laws sets a terrible constitutional precedent?
Context:
The apex court has suspended the implementation of the farm laws, and created a committee to ascertain the various grievances.
What’s the issue now?
The judges’ intervention on the laws has been questioned by the Attorney General on three grounds. He also said that a law can be stayed or struck down only on one of these three grounds. These include:
- One is that it has been passed without legislative competence.
- Two that it is violative of fundamental rights.
- Third that it is violative of other provisions of the Constitution.
So, instead of doing a hearing on the substance-: the possible federalism challenge, it has simply decided to create a committee to hear farmers’ grievances and wade into political territory.
Why this might be a dangerous precedent?
- It has set a new precedent for putting on hold laws passed by Parliament without substantive hearings on the content of the laws.
- It has muddied all the possible lines of judicial procedure, where it is not clear what the locus standi of different counsel are, what are the specific prayers that need to be addressed and how the court’s remedies address them.
- It has not really heard the farmers, whose counsel were not fully heard before the passing of orders.
- This is a monumental irony since a court whose own procedures seem to be opaque sets itself up as the arbiter of responsive government.
Conclusion:
The court is, perhaps unintentionally but damagingly, seeking to break the momentum of a social movement.
InstaLinks:
Prelims Link:
- Examples of invocation of Article 142 by the Supreme Court.
- Similar powers to High Courts.
- Original vs Appellate jurisdictions.
- Judicial review of Speaker’s decisions.
- What is Judicial activism?
- What is Judicial overreach?
Sources: Indian Express.
