Chennai Slums: The Role of the Judiciary

In a sense, 2006 has been a year when a gradual transformation has taken place from a parliamentary democracy to a judicial courtocracy. More and more issues of public policy - be it the height of a dam or the areas to be sealed - are decided in courts and not in legislatures or cabinet meetings. The union cabinet can decide on reservation policies, the court is inclined to question them. Chief ministers can give the green signal to setting up special economic zones, public interest litigations can challenge the policy in court. Even MPs disqualified by parliament in the cash for questions sting can go to the court seeking redressal.
The above is from Rajdeep Sardesai, one of our most seen television faces in his blog.

Maybe, that is another view. But, then the judiciary doesn't have plans, doesn't have the systems in place to attend to issues and (notwithstanding some rare examples) is not meant to be pro-active. Like I said in my first write-up on this issue, the judiciary will have to give importance to speedy attendance to the issue presented in front of it rather than exploring all the dimensions of the case for the larger good of the citizen. Later in his piece RS argues that the nexus between the Judiciary and Media could play a vital role, I disagree. Currently, the most visible and vocal media is also the least informed and often least sensitive. Making News into Entertainment has meant that if there is a lack of visual content, then the news is not even worth reporting. With such dominant media and judiciary driven by other priorities, it is a strange nexus and if they result in delivery good, then it is not by design.


Comments