CAN THE JUDICIARY POKE ITS NOSE IN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS?

Either the Indian media hides the meaningful words of the remarks passed by the judiciary, with a view to give a negative message against the BJP lead government or the judiciary pokes its nose in administrative matters and passes uncalled remarks on the action taken by the government.

Yes. This has been observed twice on some major actions of the government.

Demonetization:

Somebody had filed a PIL before SC against the demonetization of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes, on the plea that the Government had not followed legally prescribed procedure and had not taken sufficient precautionary measures. The action taken by the government was in haste.

The media had given head line that SC had asked the Central Government to clarify its position. Besides this, the SC had also feared whether the government had examined the law and order situation likely to take place in the states, like agitations and riots, before taking the decision. It appears that the SC was of the opinion or the SC was to show its wisdom that the demonetization could be a reason that can burst riots or can deteriorate the law and order situation in the states.

Surprisingly such remarks were made after several weeks of demonetization. There was not a single news, showing occurrence of such incidents where the bad law and order situation was noticed on account of demonetization. People used to stand in queue calmly. Some stray incidents occurred due to mismanagement in distribution of new currency notes. But ultimately such cases did not result into riots. Despite of this, the well-read SC passed a remark as to what precautions and preventive measures were taken by the government against riots in the states.

It is possible that the antisocial elements had to suffer a lot due to the demonetization. As per the report of a government appointed committee of early nineties of the last century, the anti-social elements have the nexus with political parties and local police. The Nehruvian Congress cannot be ruled out from the nexus, what to talk about its allied parties? The allied parties have the same culture.

Who had made big noise against demonetization?

The people knew very well.

The remark of SC can have genuine fear of breaking up riots provided the nexus gangs plans out quickly. But the nexus had two fight out at three fronts.

First front was to replace their currency notes by new ones as much as possible and as soon as possible.

Second front was to create an atmosphere of large scale dissatisfaction and anarchy.

Third front was to plan out to create riots.

But to plan out for riots, the nexus had a fear that their activities were being monitored by the government intelligence. The nexus knew that they cannot take Narendra Modi for granted, on his intelligence performance. They feared a big risk in planning out for riots. However we cannot ruled out that the nexus had dropped the idea of planning of generating riots. That is why they incorporated the fear of bursting riots. And it is possible that for that reason, the SC might have put up the remark related with possible likely hood of riots.

However, so far SC is concern, it was supposed to put a cross question against the petitioners, that the matter of law and orders pertains to the state. Why have you not made the state governments as the opposite parties? Or the SC could have sent of its own the notice of the petition to the state governments. This is because the SC had entertained the point of “law and order” viz. Riot as a factor.

The second incident is of HC of U.P. on the litigation related to ban of illegally running slaughter houses.

The remarks of HC for the U.P. Government;

• Renew the licenses which are pending for approval, by such and such date.

If the media has published this remark of the HC in its true literary sense and spirit, both the remarks of HC are uncalled.

The HC has instructed the U.P. Government to renew the licenses pending for renewal by such and such date. This remark is uncalled. Not only this, but the remark of HC gives a message that, the HC has examined the renewal applications of the owners of the slaughter houses and found them in order. Thereby HC has taken the status “Pending” of the applications, as a fraud on the part of the U.P. Government.

There is no information that HC has visited the places of slaughter houses whose applications for renewal of the license, were pending. There is no information as to a committee has submitted a report before the HC on the fulfillment of all the stipulated conditions required for the renewal of the license.

Is it not a matter of surprise as to how the HC can issue a blanket administrative instructions without going through the details in each case?

In case the finding of the HC is, that the previous government had kept the approval of the renewals of the licenses ready, but the succeeding  government (i.e. present government) has withhold the licenses. Then in such situation the HC can issue orders to take disciplinary actions against the officers concern. If HC is active even on passing a hypothetical remarks (discussed below) against the Government, it was more desirable to make the government active on preventive measures against the lethargy of officers, by proposing/ordering disciplinary actions.

The second remark of HC is most astonishing.

• The government cannot enforce its idea upon the people to change their food habit, and ask the people to be vegetarian.

This remark is absolutely hypothetical. One cannot abuse anybody on hypothetical basis. The media has not furnished any details as to on what ground the HC has passed such remark. Such remark of the HC gives a message that the U.P. Government has the willful tendency to not renew the licenses of the slaughter houses though they have fulfilled all stipulated conditions for the renewal of the licenses.

It is possible that the petitioner might have narrated a point that the U.P. Government machinery wanted to please the new CM and thereby it has shown its reluctance in renewing the licenses.

This looks funny if the HC takes such points of petitioners for granted and pass abusive remark against the U.P. Government.

It is a well-known fact that the Indian Constitution is not against non-vegetarian food. A state Government is capable enough to understand this provisions of the Indian Constitution, at least through its learned officers how are presenting their case before HC.

Can we ruled out the possible influence of Media on the judiciary? Yes the media has a habit to emotionalize every matter. Thereby it diverts the discussion to suit to its agenda. By linking the action taken by Adityanath Yogi on illegal slaughter houses, as his approach towards to change the eating habit of people of India, the action can be sensationalize. But we expect the judiciary to apply its mind before spelling out some remarks.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tag: Uncalled remark, SC, HC, Vegetarian food, slaughter houses, renewal of license, CM of U.P., Narendra Modi, Adityanath Yogi

Read Full Post »