Justice delayed

Supreme Court intervention often takes too long

Speaking at the International Judicial Conference recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi underlined the importance of the rule of law and highlighted the role of speedy justice in that context. The prime minister is quite right to say that the verdicts of the Supreme Court in particular, even if controversial, are regarded with respect by the other wings of the state and the public at large. The link between the speedy disposition of high-profile matters and the regard for the rule of law is also an important point. It is unfortunate, therefore, that in the recent past, the highest court has not been as swift to address some matters of grave constitutional and political importance that are in its purview.

 
In one of the most vexed political issues of the day, namely the right to carry out protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act at places like Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, the Supreme Court has now adjourned the hearing on the issue to as far away as March 23. This is unfortunate. The context of the recent violence in Delhi, which arose partly from anger at the protests, makes the postponement even more unfortunate. The court has not been idle; it has appointed two well-regarded personalities as interlocutors with the protestors on its behalf. But nevertheless a speedier resolution would have perhaps helped calm the tensions that erupted in Delhi recently. Another vital constitutional and political issue that has been hanging fire, in this case for years, is the question of electoral bonds. Such matters should not be delayed for so long that they become moot.

 
Questions have also been widely asked about the delay in addressing issues arising from the effective abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution and the associated security clampdown on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Constitutional matters of such gravity should ideally have been addressed with the greatest of urgency. It is precisely for such issues that the Supreme Court exists, after all. The court did finally pass judgment on the broad issue of internet shutdowns, imposing some restrictions on the procedure by which the executive can issue such shutdowns. Yet the specific question of restrictions on Kashmir has been allowed to slide for too long. There is also the very basic question of habeas corpus rights. For centuries, in countries with the rule of law, one of the central duties of the judiciary has been to rule on the legality of detention. But even in high-profile cases, such as that of the detention of Farooq Abdullah, who is a former chief minister, a former Union minister, and a member of Parliament, the Supreme Court did not act as quickly as it could — the notice was issued after six days, a gap that in effect allowed the government the time to charge Mr Abdullah under the Public Safety Act and rendered the judicial intervention moot.

 

It cannot be disputed that the court must take the time it needs to come to the correct judgment in any matter, particularly those of national importance. However, if the judgment comes too late to be relevant, then the court risks its own relevance in the process.