In recent months, the Supreme Court has come to take an increasingly pragmatic view of its role in delivering justice. It is no longer content with implementing the letter of the law.Now, it is also sensitive to the effect its rulings have on society. It has rightly supported the deployment of armed forces in disturbed areas. While it is true that civil authorities should look after local defence, there are several regions in the country for which such idealism could prove expensive. The hotspots are saddled with problems that go beyond the ambit of the maintenance of law and order. The Northeast, for instance, finds itself in a situation that is more akin to limited war than civil disorder. In the past, it has seen parallel criminal governments which raised taxes and dispensed justice. Even today, as the Purulia arms drop showed, gun-running is yet to be controlled. And needless to say, the drug network continues to operate freely. The use of the Army, therefore, is inevitable, and the use of the Disturbed Areas Act does not impugn the Constitution in any way, as the Naga People's Movement for Human Rights has alleged.After the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) fell into disrepute and was repealed, there is no comprehensive legislation on terrorism. TADA is remembered only for its rampant misuse, but it remains a fact that when correctly applied, it did serve a useful purpose. The use of armed forces, too, has come into question only because of excesses. To the Army's credit, it has dealt adequately with the guilty. Now, it should insist on its officers going strictly by the book. In the matter of excesses, the Army has a far cleaner track record than any police organisation in the country. But there have been a few incidents, enough for human rights organisations with questionable motives to latch on to. In its ruling, the Supreme Court has specified that the armed forces should use minimum force and hand over suspects to the civil authorities as soon as possible. In addition, the ruling might also have suggested that the Army hand over functions and responsibilities as soon as possible. Ideally, the initiative should come from the forces themselves. The Army is a more reliable judge in deciding when its job is finished than the political authority or the administration, which tend to use the forces as a handy crutch.Hopefully, the Supreme Court will continue to reflect national concerns and give precedence to them over national ideals. It has already changed tack on green issues, preferring to balance the imperatives of the environment with those of development, as was seen in the Enron case. It can be hoped that where it was earlier content with taking the merely legalistic line and shutting down offending industries, it may now look at related issues, principally the loss of employment. More recently, the court supported the Kerala High Court's ruling on bandhs, tempering the right to agitate with the private citizen's right to choose. A few years ago, the same ruling would probably have decided unconditionally in favour of the right to agitate. The law, finally, is being interpreted with maturity.
