AG vs SC on PILS with financial impact

NEW DELHI: A debate over judicial activism raged in the Supreme Court on Wednesday with the Centre asking the top court to refrain from making oral observations and passing orders on Public Interest Litigations that have financial implications. The court, on the other hand, defended its orders and said it was simply enforcing the law and the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“This country has a lot of problems,” attorney general KK Venugopal told a justice MB Lokurled bench. He submitted that courts pass orders in individual cases without realising the impact they have on the government’s budget.

“We understand the problems and we are helping the government to solve some. We know the problems are enormous,’’ Lokur responded. “We do not criticise the government but are only enforcing the law. Please be assured that Article 21 (the right to life and liberty) will always be there in the Constitution and tell your officers that they must obey and respect the laws passed by the government.”

The debate took place as the court heard a PIL related to allegedly inhuman conditions in 1,382 prisons across the country. Lokur cited the executive’s inability to ensure prison reforms and made an indirect reference to a recent UK court order asking India for details of the jail where fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya would be imprisoned if he is sent back in response to an Indian request. “You must be aware of the kind of things that are being said in foreign countries regarding our prisons. Something needs to be done,” the judge told Venugopal. He suggested constituting a panel under a retired apex court judge’s chairmanship to tackle issues pertaining to prisons and reforms, including the treatment of children in jails where their mothers are incarcerated.

Venugopal defended the government and pointed out several judgments had affected its budgetary allocations. “There are so many PILS related to social issues pending here and, unfortunately, the court hears them individually. Order in one can affect the rights of many.”

Venugopal referred to the verdict cancelling licenses of telecom companies who had been allocated 2G spectrum in 2008 and said the judgment wiped out foreign investment in the sector. Similarly, the judgment in the liquor vends case had rendered many without a livelihood.