A boy died when a tanker hit him from behind while a father was taking his five-year-old son to school. That road had neither a footpath nor crossing markings to cross the road. Such incidents keep happening in large numbers in the country, but the apex court responded to this tragic incident in a rare manner. Supreme Court Judge Justice P.S. Narasimha issued directions that walking should be recognized as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21. He said that roads should be constructed not just for vehicles but in a manner suitable for pedestrians. He also reminded that walking has cultural, religious, political, and social value in India. Justice Narasimha cited historical events like the Dandi March and the Bhoodan Movement.
A study has revealed that in this country, where walking itself has turned into a conflict, an average of 36,500 pedestrians die every year due to the lack of proper footpaths and crossings. These incidents are occurring because 80 percent of urban roads lack safe and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. In metro cities, 44 percent of roads do not have footpaths at all. Most of the existing footpaths do not comply with the regulations laid down by the Indian Roads Congress. To what extent are the government leaders—who talk about Viksit Bharat, a trillion-dollar economy, and global cities—aware of the plight of pedestrians in the country?
On this occasion, Justice Narasimha questioned the failure to make laws in accordance with the fundamental rights of the people. He clarified that when the Motor Vehicles Act was made, the fundamental right of walking people was not recognized, and it appears as if this Act was made solely for vehicles. After Justice P.S. Narasimha, the second Telugu person who is set to become the Chief Justice next year, gave a judgment to recognize walking as a fundamental right, there has been an overwhelming response from the public. Reports are emerging about the lack of footpaths in many cities. The Supreme Court Bar Association responded positively to another judgment given by Justice Narasimha, stating that advocates should first know about the Rule of Law, independent stance, and standards, and build credibility. As suggested by Justice Narasimha, it has come forward to establish a National Legal Academy for advocates. Many also welcomed the judgment given by Justice Narasimha stating that merely chanting shlokas like ‘Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheshwara’ is not primary, proper salaries must be given to those teachers, and ordered that the minimum wage scale be applied to teachers in Gujarat educational institutions. In the name of the Green Energy Corridor, he prevented any threat to the Great Indian Bustard birds in Rajasthan and Gujarat.
Like pleasant raindrops in the scorching summer, we cannot ignore some good judgments given occasionally not only by Justice Narasimha, but also by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Nagarathna, Justice Viswanathan, and others. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Surya Kant, stayed a judgment that allowed the demolition of the Aravalli hills if they exceeded a height of one hundred meters, following concerns raised by environmentalists. Although several notable judgments are coming from the Supreme Court on and off, the debate on whether the judiciary is functioning independently continues unabated.
The fact that the role of the apex court in the country is becoming controversial day by day is becoming a topic of discussion. Even former judges and senior advocates are commenting that the Supreme Court is losing its identity, acting as if it is under someone’s control, and ignoring fundamental rights. Before the country could forget the incident where a shoe was hurled at the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a petitioner made obscene remarks against the CJI in full court last week. There are those who describe such incidents as signs of growing frustration and despair toward the apex court. On the other hand, in light of the incident where a huge amount of cash was found at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, Parliament is preparing to introduce an impeachment motion against him. Why would the government let go of an opportunity to put the judiciary on the defensive?
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant himself expressed the view at a conference held in Stockholm that the independence of the judiciary is essential to preserve constitutional values and prevent the abuse of power. He cited cases such as Kesavananda Bharati, which protected fundamental rights, and S.R. Bommai, which protected the federal spirit. These judgments have entered the pages of history. In the past, the Supreme Court intervened multiple times to ensure that investigative agencies like the CBI and ED function freely, smoothly, and without any external pressure. So, how many such wonderful judgments have come from the Supreme Court in the last few years?
There is no dearth of instances where good judgments have come from some High Courts as well in recent times. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar of the Bombay High Court questioned whether externment (exile from the city) can be imposed for raising slogans against the government. He declared that people are not slaves to the government, and it is their right to protest and raise slogans opposing government decisions. Justice Madhav clarified that the police are servants to the people, not to the government. Questioning the blocking of the ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ X account, the Delhi High Court ordered that the ban on that account be lifted. The Madras High Court commented, “Judges are not holy cows, there are corrupt people among them too.” It responded in this manner to a petition filed seeking a ban on a movie that depicted a judge engaging in corruption. Ironically, because it was mentioned in the NCERT textbook that corruption exists in the judiciary, the Supreme Court opened its third eye and had that paragraph changed. The details previously mentioned regarding thousands of cases pending in courts were also removed in the new chapter. The textbook stated that the judiciary functions independently, beyond the executive and the legislature. Is that really happening?
According to the World Justice Project report, India ranks 86th in terms of the Rule of Law. According to that report, prepared by an independent organization based in the US, the Rule of Law is not that great even in the US, finding that it ranks 36th in that regard. A report by the V-Dem Institute in Sweden stated that one-fourth of the countries in the world are sliding into autocracy, and America and India are also among them. The report noted that America lost its recognition as a liberal democratic country for the first time after fifty years. It revealed that systems are systematically collapsing in India. It goes without saying that if governments become autocratic, its impact will be directly felt on the systems.
Sitting judges like Justice Narasimha, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Nagarathna, Justice Dipankar Datta, and others have been repeatedly warning about the independent status of the judiciary and the pressures coming from external forces. Present judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said that the biggest threat to the independence of the courts comes from the courts themselves… Justice Dipankar Datta said that it is not enough to say the Election Commission is independent, it must appear to be operating independently. Among former judges as well, there are those who are expressing grief over the current situation. Justice Kurian expressed concern that the federal system is in danger. While Justice Madan Lokur said that thousands of people are languishing in jails without trial, Justice Deepak Gupta criticized that the Supreme Court is acting slowly in the matter of protecting fundamental rights.
Senior advocates are also expressing similar opinions. Former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave said that the judiciary is unable to protect the people from the excesses of the government. He alleged that the leadership of the Supreme Court has failed the country and the judiciary over the last few years. Kapil Sibal, Prashant Bhushan, Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, and others also frequently highlight the plight of the judicial system. In this country, it appears that governments are suffering from more insecurity and experiencing more intolerance than the people. There is no exaggeration in saying that disastrous consequences occur precisely when governments, which ought to focus on governance, project their intolerance and sense of insecurity onto the people and systems.
akrishnarao 