Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi remarked that judicial independence in politically sensitive cases, describing it as a “mixed bag.” Singhvi emphasised that outcomes in such cases often hinge on bench composition. “So you get from draw of lots where decisions will vary in 10 ways among the 17 benches,” he stated. He further highlighted the judiciary’s tendency to avoid decisive rulings in some instances, remarking, “There is a tendency to take a decision to not decide, and another way is: operation successful, but the patient dies. This has happened in some recent cases.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi shared his perspective on judicial independence in politically sensitive cases, characterizing it as a “mixed bag.”
Speaking at an event marking the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Indian Constitution, Singhvi delved into critical facets of the judiciary, including its tendencies, evolution, and the role of media in shaping judicial outcomes.
Bench Composition and Judicial Outcomes
Singhvi highlighted how judicial outcomes in politically sensitive cases often depend heavily on bench composition, reflecting the diverse interpretations within the judiciary.
“So you get from draw of lots where decisions will vary in 10 ways among the 17 benches,”
-he observed.
This observation underscores the significant influence of bench allocation on judicial decisions, leading to varying interpretations and conclusions across cases.
Judiciary’s Reluctance to Decide Decisively
Singhvi pointed to the judiciary’s occasional reluctance to deliver conclusive rulings, describing this as a pattern in some cases.
“There is a tendency to take a decision to not decide, and another way is: operation successful, but the patient dies. This has happened in some recent cases,”
-he remarked.
Such tendencies, according to Singhvi, reflect an underlying cautiousness in politically charged scenarios, which can sometimes undermine the intended effectiveness of judicial interventions.
Judicial Review: Boundless Yet Beneficial
Reflecting on judicial review in India, Singhvi described it as “limitless” and overall advantageous, despite its occasional erratic nature.
He emphasized that while judicial review may sometimes appear uncontrolled, such instances remain exceptions rather than the norm.
“Now it is in all courts of the country. India’s boundaries of judicial review is limitless and I think it is a good thing which has been done by somewhat erratic and uncontrolled judicial review than more harm. Aberrations do not define the rule. We should ensure that the unruly horse is ridden well,”
-he stated.
Singhvi’s analogy of the “unruly horse” suggests the importance of guiding the expansive power of judicial review responsibly to maintain its benefits without compromising its credibility.
Phases of the Supreme Court’s Evolution
The Senior Advocate traced the evolutionary journey of the Supreme Court, identifying distinct phases that define its history. These included:
- The focus on protecting individual rights during the 1950s and 60s.
- A shift toward economic and social rights.
- The emergency era, marked by controversial judgments such as ADM Jabalpur.
- The recent liberal phase under the tenure of former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
“The last Chief Justice (CJI DY Chandrachud) had a more liberal court where he tried to speak truth to power, tried, not always successful,”
-Singhvi noted.
This historical perspective sheds light on the dynamic and adaptive nature of the Supreme Court in responding to societal and political changes.
Media’s Role in Judicial Independence
Turning to the role of media, Singhvi critiqued the “debasement of discourse” in electronic media while simultaneously acknowledging its unintended positive impact on judicial independence.
He argued that the sensationalism prevalent in electronic media serves to deter undue influence on judges.
“The debasement of discourse in media has actually helped judges to keep their independence and anybody watching this in right mind cannot be influenced.. the amount of garbage. The print media is slightly more responsible,”
-he said.
Singhvi praised the print media for maintaining a relatively higher standard of responsibility, contrasting it with the sensationalism of electronic platforms.
Conclusion
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s remarks provide a nuanced exploration of judicial independence, bench dynamics, and the judiciary’s broader role in India’s democratic framework.
By reflecting on past and present judicial tendencies and media influences, Singhvi calls for a balance that ensures robust, unbiased, and effective judicial functioning in a rapidly evolving socio-political landscape.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Abhishek Manu Singhvi
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
