After the caution, the clarification:PILs are welcome

Sending a clear signal that the observations of a two-judge bench against 8220;judicial activism and overreach8221; did not mean that PILs...

Sending a clear signal that the observations of a two-judge bench against 8220;judicial activism and overreach8221; did not mean that PILs could not be entertained, the Supreme Court today said the ruling was not binding.

8220;We are a three-judge bench and are not bound by a two-judge bench order,8221; said Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan after his bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal, was asked by an advocate whether his PIL would be entertained in the light of the two-judge bench8217;s order last Monday.

Advocate Ravinder Bana, whose PIL on the condition of widows in Vrindavan and Mathura in Uttar Pradesh was listed for hearing, told the CJI8217;s bench that Monday8217;s order had led to confusion and the media had 8220;misled8221; everyone by giving the impression that PILs would not be entertained.

The CJI8217;s remarks assume significance in the context of courts adopting differing stands ever since the observation by the bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Markandeya Katju. In their ruling, the bench, while admitting that judicial activism was disturbing the 8220;delicate8221; balance of powers 8220;enshrined8221; in the Constitution, had sent an unequivocal message to the judiciary: restrain yourself.

It had even gone to the extent of questioning a slew of recent orders by the Delhi High Court 8212; on several issues from demolitions to nursery admissions 8212; calling them 8220;illegal.8221; 8220;Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State 8212; the legislature, the executive and the judiciary 8212; must have respect for the others and not encroach into each other8217;s domain,8221; the two-judge bench said.

Following that judgment, another two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had referred a PIL to a larger bench citing doubts over its jurisdiction. In the Delhi High Court, different judges adopted varying stands.

But the CJI8217;s bench today sought to end that confusion. 8220;You just tell, what is your petition?8221; the bench asked the advocate appearing for Delhi NGO Environment and Consumer Protection Fund. Assured, the advocate highlighted the deplorable condition of widows living in Vrindavan and parts of Mathura. He urged the court to issue directions to the authorities to ensure that the widows were rehabilitated to live with dignity.

Story continues below this ad

When the advocate cited newspaper reports to say that these widows were paid Rs three in the morning and the same amount in the evening for singing in the name of the lord, the bench told him firmly: 8220;We shall not go by newspaper reports.8221; When he pressed his case and said he had personally gone there to find out the situation, the court sought a response from the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government.