'Judicial activism at its vibrant peak in India only'

Kolkata, May 13: With executive and legislative ''failing'' to address people's causes properly, judiciary is increasing taking over their roles, but experts remain divided on whether this is beneficial or not.

''India happens to be the only country, where judicial activism is at its highest level, Congress spokesperson Abhishekh Manu Singhvi opined.

In a seminar on '' Over-Activism of Judiciary is Anathema to Constitutional Structure '' here yesterday, Mr Singhvi said, it was ''an undeniable evil'' that the judiciary has encroached upon the territory of the other organs of the government. '' Former Chief Justice of India Justice A M Ahmadi attributed the alleged over-activism to the fact that the executive and legislative had ''failed'' to address public grievances.

The people more often than not are hard pressed to plead their cases with the judiciary, he pointed out.

Justice Ahmadi admitted that the ''curse'' of judicial over-activism certainly existed. However, he stressed on the need for all to identify the reason for this alleged transgression of power and urged everyone concerned to share the onus for such a change in the system.

Stating that it was, in fact, the ''ineffiency'' of the Legislature and the executive that forced the judiciary to take up litigations brought up by the public, he asked other panelists to find ways to amend the system suitably so that the judiciary does not have to assume an over-active role.

''If everyone does his own duty properly, there is peace, but if everyone starts to encroach upon other's territory, there is trouble.,'' BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar said.

'' The concept of PIL was introduced in the 1970s to essentially help people, who have socio-economic constraints, to approach the court and vindicate their grievances, '' the former CJI added.

West Bengal Legislative Assembly Speaker H A Halim, who presided the discussion, also agreed that corruption did exist within the judiciary and the high courts and Supreme Court are equally to be blamed for the situation.

In this connection, he even mentioned the case of Justice Rangaswami, who was later forced to resign.

Justice Ahmadi, however, defended the judiciary's position before the gathering to buffer further accusations from other panelists.

Mr Singhvi further pointed out that the sole purpose of setting up three separate organs of the government was to separate power or to make anyone stronger than the other but to make sure all the organs were able to execute their functions properly.

Both Congress and BJP spokespersons agreed that the judiciary's overactivism was not an assured power but an assumed power, which was diametrically opposite to what the Constitution upholds in its Ninth Schedule, where it does not allow the courts to intervene or challenge the validity of the acts, passed by the Legislature or for that matter actions taken up by the executive.

UNI