The Hindu : Opinion / Letters to the Editor : Unwarranted remarks

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 03, 2007
ePaper

Opinion

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Unwarranted remarks

The recent outburst of the Supreme Court against the Tamil Nadu government for holding a bandh is uncalled for. Article 356 of the Constitution is recognised to be a political and legislative power and discretion subject to judicial review. There can be no mandamus or direction to the government by the court to invoke Article 356. Further, any order under Article 356 is subject to judicial review and if it is done on the directions of the court, where will the aggrieved party go? If the court itself suggests the filing of a contempt petition, what justice will be done to the aggrieved person?

What did the Supreme Court do when the Kerala government openly defied it and refused to implement the order in the Mullaiperiyar case and the Karnataka government in the Cauvery water dispute? Did not the Supreme Court bear with the agitation of the students of the AIIMS and the public demonstrations against the demolition order when those matters were pending before the court? Does it mean that Tamil Nadu and issues relating to Tamilians are different from other issues? They are at least issues that are legally entertainable and enforceable by the courts.

But there are various other issues in which the Supreme Court should not interfere. Religious beliefs and stories are not enforceable through courts.

S. Doraisamy,
Chennai

* * *

Justice B.N. Agrawal’s oral observation was unwarranted. The DMK and its allies withdrew the bandh call and observed a day-long fast to express their anguish over the tardy progress of the Sethusamudram project. The unions affiliated to the ruling parties also participated in the fast. There might have been sporadic incidents which amounted to a violation of the court’s order, which is not uncommon in a situation of this kind. They cannot be construed as a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the State.

S. Balusamy,
Chennai

* * *

Hartals and fasts are non-violent methods of protest advocated by the father of the nation. Is it the judiciary’s case that his methods were all wrong and that all contentious issues should be sorted out through courts? Even when the Mahatma called for hartals, normal life was disrupted but such disruptions were justified in the larger interest. Bandhs (or hartals or whatever) can be discussed or condemned on merit; banning them altogether is not democracy.

K. Nandakumar,
Bangalore

* * *

How can a judge think of dethroning a democratically elected government when there is no evidence of breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the State? The learned judge’s ‘threat’ amounts to judicial overreach.

Kattari Ananda Naidu,
Chennai

* * *

Should we understand from Justice Agrawal’s observation that the non-running of buses, and closure of shops and establishments on any given day constitute a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in a State, warranting dismissal of the government?

Baikadi Suryanarayana Rao,
Bangalore

* * *

I am certainly not a supporter of the DMK’s bandh call. But I feel the harsh comments against the Tamil Nadu government, based merely on what the AIADMK lawyer said, were uncalled for. Is not the apex court aware of the situations that warrant the dismissal of State governments?

P.R. Thiruvengadam,
Coimbatore

* * *

The Constitution vests the power to recommend the dismissal of a State government only in the executive. Courts only have the power to examine whether the dismissal is constitutionally valid. It is not for them to recommend the dismissal of State governments. The Supreme Court judge has transgressed his limits in his oral observations.

S.A. Nasser Khan,
Chennai

* * *

Most citizens would welcome the court’s timely interference staying the bandh. But the judge’s outburst was inappropriate. As Francis Bacon rightly said: “... an overspeaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal.”

V.K. Sathyavan Nair,
Kottayam

* * *

What was our highest court of law doing when thousands of people from a particular community were being butchered in Gujarat during the State-sponsored pogrom in 2002? Was there not a complete breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the State? Why did it not recommend the dismissal of the government?

Of course, bandhs violate the fundamental rights of the people and the Supreme Court’s intervention is welcome. But wasn’t the judge’s observation highhanded?

S.M.A Patel,
Chennai

* * *

The strong words used by the honourable judge threatening to recommend the Tamil Nadu government’s dismissal amounts to judicial overreach at its worst. When a leader of the ruling party decides to go on a hunger strike, it is only natural for shops to down their shutters. The trade unions affiliated to the ruling party are bound to extend support.

While passing orders, courts should be mindful of the ground realities and social factors.

C. Balachander,
Chennai

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Constitutionally off-track

A tangled web of questions and tensions

Human rights commissions in India

Cricket, kite-flying, and gun-toting guards dateline kabul

‘Amazon jungle could be lost in 40 years’

Unwarranted remarks

Welcome intervention