Rights paper tigers unless given teeth by courts: SC judge
NEW DELHI: “Rights in themselves are paper tigers unless they are given teeth by the courts,” Supreme Court judge Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud asserted while underscoring that India’s social, political, and economic status would not have been the same but for the Supreme Court’s interventions.
Delivering his address at King’s College in London on Monday, justice Chandrachud was emphatic that in the long history of India as an independent nation, “the Supreme Court has often been central to the realization of constitutional goals and values and the protection of the rights and liberties of citizens”.
The senior Supreme Court judge, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India in November, was speaking on the topic “Protecting human rights and preserving civil liberties: The role of courts in a democracy” when he elucidated the role of Indian courts in ascertaining constitutional remedies and enforcement of fundamental rights.
The judge termed it “almost cliched” to say that Supreme Courts are not final because they are right but they are right simply because they are final. “Judges are not infallible. Decisions once thought to be final are reviewed by succeeding generations. However, would the country’s social, political, and economic status have been the same but for the Supreme Court’s interventions? The debate in individual cases aside, the answer to the question is in the negative,” he said.
The judge went on to exemplify judicial interventions that shaped various laws and history of the country, highlighting that one of the most important issues that the Supreme Court engaged in has been gender.
Justice Chandrachud pointed out that with the changing times, the Supreme Court moved beyond the manifest forms of discrimination and engaged with the binary division of gender into men and women, gendered notions of certain professions, discrimination on the basis of gender.
Citing cases such as grant of permanent commission to women in armed forces and instances of protective discrimination where women were sought to be barred from certain professions, justice Chandrachud said the Supreme Court has realized that it is not merely enough that women are granted the opportunity to sit at the table, but also to ensure that their lived experiences are factored in to ensure that they can avail such opportunities.
“All these instances and more show the path that the Supreme Court has taken to protect human rights and civil liberties for different sections of society. The role of courts in a democracy is informed by civil and political structure, the social fabric, and the customs and traditions of society,” he said.
At the same time, justice Chandrachud said that the use of courts as the first line of defence to solve complicated social issues is a reflection of the waning power of discourse and consensus building, triggered by the forces of racism, casteism and discrimination.
“The growing litigious trend in the country is indicative of the lack of patience in the political discourse,” he lamented, adding that the top court but it cannot transcend its role by deciding issues requiring involvement of elected representatives.