By IANS
New Delhi : A day after a Supreme Court bench cautioned the judiciary against indulging in judicial activism, the apex court Tuesday virtually found itself gripped by self-doubt over its power to entertain public suits.
The court’s self-doubt was evident from the decision of a bench to refer to a larger bench a Public Interest Litigation on the legal status of sex workers.
“In view of yesterday’s judgment (by the bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katzu), this matter be referred to a larger three-judge bench to be examined if it could be heard by us,” said the bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi, while refusing to further adjudicate the PIL filed by a non-governmental organisation Prajawala.
The suit had sought the court’s direction to the government to treat sex workers, held under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (SITA), as a victim of the crime rather than an accused. The PIL has also demanded a ban on arrest of such victims.
The bench of Justice Sinha referred the matter to a larger bench mid-way through its adjudication. The bench had been hearing the PIL for quite some time.
With Justice Sinha’s bench referring the PIL to a larger bench “in view of” Monday’s ruling on judicial activism, the controversial ruling itself stands referred to a larger bench for legal scrutiny.
In an apparently candid mood of self-introspection, the bench of Justice Mathur and Justice Katzu had cautioned the judiciary to refrain from encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive saying otherwise politicians will curtail its power and independence.
“If the judiciary does not exercise restraint, there is bound to be a reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will step in to curtail its power and independence,” the bench had apprehended Monday.
Justice Katzu had on an earlier occasion made an equally controversial remark about “hanging the corrupt by the nearest lamppost”.
The observation had triggered a debate in the legal circles over the desirability of judges’ making exaggerated and hyperbolic observations in courts.
The bench of Justice Mathur and Justice Katzu, in its ruling delivered Thursday but released Monday, observed, “In the name of judicial activism, judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the state.”
“Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the government. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like emperors,” the bench had said.
What has made the ruling all the more controversial is the fact that the bench has gone to the extent of questioning various Supreme Court judgements, delivered in past by benches headed by erstwhile chief justices, and has also virtually rendered illegal a host of recent decisions by the Delhi High court by its single 22-page judgement.