Editorial Simplified: The Great Indian Abdication | GS – II

Relevance: GS Paper II (Polity and Governance)


Why has this issue cropped up?

India, at present, is going through a deep crisis in which the mission of deepening democracy, and protecting and advancing social freedoms is placed solely upon the judiciary.


How the judiciary is acquiring the most important role in democracy?

  • If the judiciary has assumed the role of the single most important pillar of India’s parliamentary democracy, built on separation of powers, it is mainly because of the degradation and abuse of the roles of the legislature and the executive.
  • Here, is an example. Earlier this year, the government amended the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act to retrospectively legalise political donations from foreign companies and individuals since 1976.
  • This move — with potentially catastrophic ramifications for Indian democracy — was pushed through without discussion in Parliament and hardly any debate in the public sphere.

Parliament’s erosion

  • Parliament, the supreme venue representing the people, has become a shadow of what it should be.
  • The Prime Minister rarely attends parliamentary debates, affecting the sanctity of the forum.
  • If the Lok Sabha met for an average of 127 days in the 1950s, in 2017 it met for a shocking 57.
  • If 72 Bills were passed in a year in the first Lok Sabha, the number was 40 in the 15th Lok Sabha (2009-14).
  • The Budget session for this fiscal year saw a scarcely believable usage of 1% of its allotted time in the Lok Sabha, and the Budget, the most vital cog of a national’s material basis, itself passed without discussion through the guillotine process.
  • Parliament, instead of representing the highest democratic ethos, panders to electoral majorities, leaving it incapable of challenging barbaric social/religious practices enforced by dominant interests. That is why it took 70 years for Section 377 to be partially struck down.
  • Is it then surprising that the Supreme Court steps into this dangerous void left by the executive and the legislature?

Can the task of democratising be left to judiciary?

  • The task of democratising society cannot be left to the judiciary, an unelected body, the higher echelons of which self-appoint their members through the collegium system.
  • Instead, it must be through social and political struggles from the bottom, and not through judicial diktats from above.

State of the judiciary

  • The judiciary does not exist in a vacuum. Even when it attempts to correct regressive social practices, it is still a reflection of our society.
  • Nothing could be more illustrative of this than the serious lack of diversity and representation, especially in the higher judiciary.
  • In 1993, Justice S.R. Pandian estimated that less than 4% of judges in the higher judiciary were from Dalit and tribal communities, and less than 3% were women.
  • Since Independence, only four Dalits have become Supreme Court judges, including one Chief Justice of India.
  • Even in the lower judiciary, the story is not starkly different. Data from 11 States show that the representation of Other Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes judges ranged from 12% to 14%.
  • It took 42 years for a woman judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and there have been only eight women judges in the Supreme Court so far.
  • While representation can become tokenistic and essentialist, democracy is absolutely hollow without it.

Case backlog

  • The abdication of responsibility by the legislature is even more damaging considering that the judiciary is groaning under the weight of a mammoth 3.3 crore pending cases.
  • What could be more unjust in a democracy than thousands of innocent undertrials languishing in jails for a lifetime awaiting justice?
  • A staggering 67% of India’s prison population awaits trial; 55% of these undertrials are Dalits, tribals, and Muslims.
  • In this context, should the valuable time of the judiciary be spent in entertaining and delivering verdicts on Public Interest Litigations (PILs), seeking, to take a couple of instances, a ban on pornography or making the national anthem mandatory in cinema halls?
  • The PIL, a unique and powerful tool to seek justice for the weakest sections, has now degenerated.
  • Overworked courts cannot become a one-stop solution for performing legislative/executive tasks such as banning fire crackers/loud speakers, enforcing seat belt/helmet wearing rules, or solving theological/civil society questions such as what the essence of Hinduism is or whether a mosque is integral for namaz.

Conclusion

The task of completing the world’s largest democracy’s political and social revolution cannot be laid only at the doorstep of the judiciary.


Reference:

The great Indian abdication (The Hindu)


 

Leave a Reply