Shantaram Naik complains of judicial activism and overreach

Demands 3-day special session of Parliament to discuss issue

New Delhi: Shantaram Naik, MP and Chairman of the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, briefs to the media about their 52nd Report, submitted to Parliament, in New Delhi on Monday. PTI Photo by Vijay Kumar Joshi(PTI5_21_2012_000140A)

Shantaram Naik, Rajya Sabha MP of the Congress from Goa, on Wednesday demanded a special session of Parliament to discuss “increasing judicial activism”.

In a statement, the former chairman of the Standing Committee of Parliament on Personnel Public Grievances, Law and Justice, alleged interference of the judiciary in matters ranging from issuing licences to dance bars to appointing administrators to run the BCCI. He expressed concern over “judiciary crossing the Laxman Rekha” and said “step by step, brick by brick, the edifice of Indian Legislature is being destroyed”.

In a letter to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley — a copy of which was also sent to Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad — Mr. Naik said with the recent ban on liquor along national highways, the Supreme Court may have “interfered” with the job of the legislature and the executive.

Mr. Naik said in his statement, “In the letter I have demanded that the government convene a special session of Parliament to discuss the increasing judicial activism. The apex court has now gone on to decide on liquor bans and dance bar licences, which are subjects that come under the domain of State governments.” He suggested that the government convene a three-day special session of Parliament to discuss these issues.

He said, “The Supreme Court has obviously not taken into consideration that lakhs of people will be unemployed as a result of its liquor ban order. If the courts are going to delve into such administrative aspects, what role will the Parliament, the State Assemblies and State governments perform?”

‘Going too far’

Just as the Prime Minister cannot decide on judicial matters, the judges cannot interfere in matters allotted to the legislature and the executive on the grounds that they have failed to discharge their responsibilities, said Mr. Naik in his letter.

“It is now the Supreme Court which decides how cricket should be played and managed in India, who should be the office-bearers and who should not be on the Board of the Control of Cricket in India.”