Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, in a veiled attack against the Supreme Court’s decision on the Sabarimala issue, declared that ‘Constitutional morality’ cannot be enforced on ‘Individual morality’.
He was delivering the silver endowment talk on ‘Judicial Law-making: Boon or Bane?’ at the SDM Law College and the Centre for Post-graduate Studies and Research in Law on Saturday.
The Solicitor General asked if one’s morality could be guided by the likes of a court. As an example, Mehta recollected himself falling at the feet of Shri Kshethra Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Dr D Veerendra Heggade after being felicitated by Heggade. “I fell at his feet to seek blessings based on my ethos and my upbringing,” he stressed.
Stepping in
Tracing the history of the Judiciary stepping in to make the law, he said, earlier, the Judiciary was forced to step in when both the Legislature and the Executive did not share any concern for the welfare of lower strata. In the second phase, the Judiciary had to step in when both failed to address social issues like harassment of women at workplace, he explained.
“In the third phase, witnessing presently, the issues should have been left to society. In issues like decriminalising Section 377 of the IPC or allowed to temple (Shabarimala shrine), nobody should question the belief or ethos on the logic pursued by judicial officers,” he stressed.
‘Real Lok Adalat’
Shri Kshethra Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari and SDM Educational Society President Dr D Veerendra Heggade declared that the tradition of Hoyulus practised in Dharmasthala is the real Lok Adalat (alternative dispute redressal mechanism).
“There are no advocates and yet the dispute is settled without anyone feeling victorious or a failure. The case is settled amicable and the warring groups receive prasadam as an indication to bury their rivalry. ‘Hoyulu’ in spirit follows the old panchayat system of disposing complaints,” Heggade added.
