Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka Yesterday (April 16th) proposed initiating a debate and dialogue with stakeholders to determine whether a criterion should be established to assess when the Supreme Court can consider petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Justice Abhay S Oka of the Supreme Court highlighted the pressing need for a comprehensive debate and discussion among stakeholders regarding the potential establishment of criteria to govern the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
During his discourse at the Ambedkar Memorial Lecture, centered on ‘Article 32: History and the Future,’ Justice Oka brought attention to the escalating volume of cases being presented directly to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, as envisaged by the Constitution. This surge has prompted the Court to redirect numerous petitioners to their respective High Courts initially.
Justice Oka acknowledged the deterrent effect of high case pendency on the Supreme Court’s capacity to entertain such petitions. He remarked,
“There are businessmen also who come with a big team of lawyers consuming time of court and arguing that Article 19(1)(g) is violated. Then how do we bring equality between the common convict and the businessman? Should there be some test laid down which say that only if these tests are adhered to then Article 32 can be invoked? Thus, this is a debatable topic as to if such a test can be laid down and restrict its own power. We must invite a debate on the enforcement of fundamental rights by our court and how far have we been successful in this.”
His lecture, organized by The Leaflet in collaboration with the Society for Constitution and Social Democracy, was a platform for not only illuminating discussions on constitutional subjects but also for encouraging constructive criticism of the judiciary. Justice Oka particularly highlighted the Supreme Court’s reluctance to process Article 32 petitions due to the backlog of cases.
He explained,
“Some may argue that the Supreme Court should entertain all Article 32 pleas without sending them to the High Courts. But we are not living in an ideal world. If there was no pendency of cases, then the scene would have been different. There are 80,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court. We are not only a constitutional court but also an appellate court … when we have mounting arrears we need to fix our priorities.”
Addressing the suggestion of constituting a dedicated Bench for handling such cases, Justice Oka clarified that such decisions rest with the Chief Justice of India, stating,
“I had only one answer. This question has to be before the master of roster and no one else.”
On the topic of the Supreme Court’s approach to personal liberty petitions and the presence of diverse viewpoints within the Bench, he embraced the variety, affirming,
“We need such diversity when it comes to judicial views. AK Gopalan was corrected, and ADM Jabalpur too was corrected. And today we say something and later it can be corrected. Law is not mathematics which is 2 plus 2 = 4.”
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice Abhay S Oka
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
