Key cases: Call for action by judiciary

The judiciary is being increasingly moved to intervene in different situations in different ways for different reasons. The Supreme Court had to take an action in a case about a breach of the Prime Minister’s security in Punjab where two governments had got into the act and started investigating the case in their own ways. The two investigations would have yielded different results. But in a case about the hate speeches made at two religious conclaves at Hardwar and in Delhi last month, the court has been called upon to act because the executive did not act or was reluctant to take the right action. In both situations, the conduct of the governments concerned was not guided by public interest but by partisan considerations.

The court has issued notices to the governments of Delhi and Uttarakhand on petitions that sought a credible investigation into the hate speeches made at the two conclaves. Calls had been made in these meetings for the extermination of Muslims and the establishment of a Hindu nation. It has been pointed out that the Uttarakhand government had dragged its feet on the matter and filed weak cases, that too not against persons who made the most provocative speeches. No arrests were made. Like Punjab, Uttarakhand is also going to the polls next month, and the state government may not want to take action against the Hindu leaders who made the call to arms. The leaders at the Centre, including the Prime Minister, have also not made any comment on the speeches. The problem with inadequate actions and silence is that they would be taken as endorsement of the offence.

The court has been saddled with the issue because of the failure of the executive and the dominant political leadership to deal with it. It is not just a failure of law and order or an administrative lapse but a failure to meet constitutional obligations. The speeches were a challenge to the state and the Constitution, and no government should evade its responsibility to act on it. It is not known how effective judicial action will be when the court chooses to act, because some intended damage has already been done. Can the court prevent further damage? The question of the limits of judicial intervention and action arises in such cases because the issue brought before it is basically political and administrative. Even then, actions by the court in such cases are welcome because they are assertions of remedial judicial power. But it is ironic that the court, which has proved to be responsive in such cases, has not acted on some issues which are legitimately in its own domain and are pending before it for long.