Opinion Courts rush in

The court has taken on a valid concern but, unfortunately, it has externalised the issue from the executive. It is yet another instance of judicial overreach into the executive’s turf — in policy-making and administrative reform — by court-constituted committees (for example, a committee was recently set up on road safety). Reform is an ongoing process in government and the executive needs the space and power to crowd-source ideas and keep implementing what is in the realm of the feasible at that point. Unfortunately, the legislature has of late failed in its role of being an enlightened guide to point governments to the issues of concern — and as long as the courts act to fill in that role, they would right the institutional balance. But by reaching over-much and laying out policy for the executive instead of ruling on what’s lawful and what is not, the court is tilting the balance in a manner that separates power from accountability and grabbing turf in a way that could undermine the judiciary itself.

Parliamentary elections give governments an opportunity to renew their mandate, to go back to the people for validation. If it does not come, they demit power. But they draw their power to make policy — and yes, sometimes bad policy — from this unique interface with the people at election-time. A similar means of renewal is not available to the judiciary. Given the unique and immensely valuable role the higher judiciary has played in our republic, it would be disastrous if the appearance of a power grab and the responsibility for the consequences of policy-making attach to it and undermine its profile.

Curated For You

26-year-old man dies after falling from 16th-floor apartment in Bengaluru

Disquiet on Trump’s PM remark, but Delhi chooses not to react

Jana Nayagan postponed: Madras HC reserves order on plea to issue censor certificate for Vijay’s movie