Of late, knowing an individual’s views on the subject of the current judiciary has become enough to zero in on their placement on the political spectrum. Those sympathetic to the ruling party will not be pleasantly disposed; those in the opposition, however, will be more than enamoured, with some going to the extent of calling the present dispensation a significant node in the history of specialised jurisprudence itself!
As with all issues, things become interesting when the two entrenched sides start prodding up “evidence” for their points of view. And how quickly a citation is trashed or championed, depending on what it says. Some time ago, the International Council of Jurists came up with a report on the judiciary. This report wouldn’t have made for cheerful reading for the judiciary. The three axes of appointment of the judges; judicial activism and inter-institutional dynamics, especially with regards to the separation of powers, don’t tell the story of an enviable judiciary.
The liberati and the jiyalas had a field day with the report, having found foreign, “grown-up” vindication of their point of view. Now that the same ICJ has conferred upon the chief justice what is one of their most prestigious awards, that too, facing a selection from all over the world, the same lot of jiyalas aren’t too impressed.
The internal inconsistencies of the ideological edifices of both sides notwithstanding, an attempt to ascertain the truth would do everyone a whole lot of good.
The fact of the matter remains that the present dispensation has shaken things up. For the better; there is much more vibrancy than there used to be. The judicial backlog of the higher courts, though huge, is being chipped away at a much better pace than it used to be in the past. This instils a lot of hope and confidence in the wretched of the earth, which face a soul wrenching series of delay after delay in the courts.
On the flip side, the courts have been accused of being unsound judicially. Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice hurried is justice buried. Much has been written about the falling quality of judgments, which have been accused of being vague and poorly worded.
The judiciary’s confusion regarding its limits, vis-à-vis the parliament and the executive is also alarming. In the context of the parliament, the courts are to interpret laws, not draft them. In the context of the executive, the courts are to decide whether or not a decision is illegal, not whether it is good or bad.
And it would do the country a whole lot of good if all shades of the political spectrum were to be honest in their assessments, give credit where it is due and criticise heroes, if need be.
