Opinions are divided on the Supreme Court agreeing to stay the delivery of its jallikattu judgment for a week on the Centre’s suggestion.
Some legal experts call it an “unprecedented and unofficial stay of the delivery of judgment”, while retired judges term it a mere “practicality” in the light of talks that an ordinance may be issued, taking into consideration the wide public opinion in favour of bringing jallikattu back.
Some point out that the new ordinance, apparently to re-introduce jallikattu, would again be an executive measure to circumvent the SC ban on jallikattu, condemned as an “inherent act of cruelty” by a detailed judgment in 2014.
ADVERTISEMENT
A plea for the review of the 2014 judgment was again dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2016, a full two years after the original verdict.
Legal experts ask whether the SC has stalled its judicial process for a week, thus giving leeway for the executive to notify an ordinance, which would probably defeat its own jallikattu ban of 2014.
A judgment, probably invalidating the January 7, 2016 notification of the Centre, may whip up public passions, but would also be a confirmation of the 2014 ban. “Courts must also be aware of the practicalities of the matter. If the parties involved — the Centre is a party and so is Tamil Nadu — want to talk and arrive at a compromise, the court can consider the practicality involved and defer the judgement for a definite period. There’s nothing wrong in it. The independence of the judiciary is not threatened. The parties will have to wait a little more, that’s all,” former Delhi HC Chief Justice Rajinder Sachar said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Justice Sachar said that if an ordinance comes out in the meanwhile, it would be placed before the court for its perusal. Former SC judge, Justice K.T. Thomas, said public opinion leads to legislation like an ordinance, and there is nothing wrong in the governing arms listening to overwhelming public opinion.
Making a distinction
“The government can come to court to say that the judgement should be deferred as talks are on for a compromise and a legislation is in sight. But the government cannot come to court saying that your judgement may create a law and order situation, so defer it for later,” Justice Thomas distinguished.
‘Highly improper’
Former Additional Solicitor-General and senior advocate Indira Jaising said the request made by the government to the SC to defer its judgement, no matter what the reason was, is “highly improper”.
“We can make an urgent mention in court to fast-track the delivery of the judgement. But you cannot go to court and ask it to delay the judgment. This is unprecedented,” Ms. Jaising said.
Ms. Jaising further asked whether any prior notice was issued about the mentioning for deferment of the judgment to the opposite parties in the litigation, mostly comprising animal rights activists and organisations. “Why were they not heard before the judgment was delayed? This is nothing but an unofficial stay of the judgment,” she said.