Judging the judiciary
Deliberating, framing policies and passing laws is legislature's responsibility. Implementing them and dealing with any agitation is the government's job.
The Supreme Court’s stay on the implementation of three farm laws till further orders, and the suggestion that a committee named by it should suggest within two months what changes in the farm laws are needed, is - to say the least, most respectfully - disappointing and, to some extent, bad in spirit, if not in law.
Frankly, Supreme Court should not have entered this gully of constitutional chaos. These are three laws, deliberated and passed by Parliament. Framing laws is the responsibility of the lawmakers and they are duly elected by the people. Courts are there to interpret the laws and to see that no law goes against the basic grain of the constitution.
It is not, and has never been, the responsibility of the courts to judge Acts and Laws passed by an elected Parliament.
What next? Should courts decide whether there should be a surgical strike on Pakistan or not? Or should it decide whether what Bihar Regiment did in Galwan Valley on India-China borders was a humane act or not?
The fact is that the latest SC stay on the implementation of Farm Laws actually helps the Narendra Modi government in a big way.
While the court has taken out all justification from the farmers’ agitation, the decision also provides the government an escape route, days before the Republic Day function.
The farmers will look bad, if they do not show trust in SC appointed committee, and if they do not end their agitation and disperse now.
After all, they have been given an opportunity to showcase their grievances before a SC-appointed committee. What would be the justification behind continuing the agitation any more?
On the other hand, the government gets an opportunity to pass the buck to a committee and show that the arguments of farmers against the farm laws lack merit.
While, this judicial intervention may have come as a breather for the central government at this juncture, the long-term repercussion of this order, of staying a law, would not be salutary for our democracy.
On the grounds, it encourages mobocracy and undermines the functioning of a democratic machinery.
It means, tomorrow, any group would assemble resources for months-long agitation and block any main road for months insisting that any law passed by the Parliament or any decision taken by the executive be scrapped.
What if some other groups too do the same for demanding exactly the opposite?
Should policies, acts, laws and issues be decided by blocking roads, cities and public utilities and assembling crowds?
Deliberating, framing policies and passing laws is legislature's responsibility. Implementing them and dealing with any agitation is the government's job.
Courts should desist from intervening in these areas, whatever be the temptations to do so.
The Honourable Courts should not have ventured into the uncharted alleys of public chaos where only champions of anarchy, unrule and anti-democratic forces loiter around waiting for an opportunity to subvert anything good that is happening in this country.
They should not have taken this shortcut route to find solution to dissent and agitation. Because this is exactly where the Maoists, ultra-leftists and secessionists want to - and have been working hard to - lead India into.
This intervention may help the government of the day in this specific instance. But it will set a bad precedent for the country and would help future agitationists subvert any law just by taking to streets.
And also because it gives some validation to those forces who want to crowd-control Indian democracy.
