New Delhi(IANS) : The Supreme Court’s ruling against judicial activism last week continued to haunt the judiciary Thursday even as a bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan sought to put an end to the controversy by saying that it was not “binding”.
“We are not bound by the two-judge bench order,” the three-judge bench headed by the chief justice said.
But his observation failed to clarify if the Dec 6 order, delivered by a bench of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju, will not bind only three-judges’ bench or not be binding at all on any bench.
The chief justice made the remark to allay the fears of a lawyer, who, while urging the bench to take up a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by him, mentioned media reports relating to the Dec 6 order and wondered if the court would entertain his lawsuit at all.
Allaying the lawyer’s apprehensions, the bench entertained his lawsuit relating to the plight of widows in Vrindavan and Mathura and issued notices to the central and Uttar Pradesh governments.
Justices Mathur and Katju in their order had cautioned judiciary against indulging in judicial activism and encroaching upon the domain of the legislature and the executive, saying if the courts failed to restrain themselves the politicians would step in and curtail their power and independence.
A day after the ruling was reported by media, another bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and H.S. Bedi refused to hear a PIL and referred it to the chief justice to ascertain whether they were entitled to hear the lawsuit in view of the Dec 6 ruling.