THE GIST of Editorial for UPSC Exams : 03 March 2020 [Justice not done (Indian Express)]

Justice not done (Indian Express)

Mains Paper 2: Polity
Prelims level: Article 21
Mains level: Role of Judiciary to establishment the rule of law

Context:

• The Delhi High Court’s handling of the petition seeking FIRs against the BJP leaders for their alleged hate speeches on February 27 amounts to abdication of constitutional duty.
• The time has come for the nation to be reminded that judges of the Supreme Court and high courts are constitutionally obliged to “make and subscribe… an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.”

Rule of constitution:

• The oath inter-alia requires the person to solemnly affirm, “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India… that I will duly and faithfully act to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment, perform duties of my office without fear or favour, without affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.”
• Article 21, which every judge is bound to enforce provides, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Centre’s argument:

• The Bench presided by Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Hari Shankar acceded to the Centre’s argument that “the time was not conducive to file FIRs related to the alleged hate speeches as the priority right now is to ensure peace” and adjourned the hearing to as late as April 13.
• The Court apparently failed to consider that the loss of lives of more than 40 people, serious injuries to over 200 and damage to hundreds of houses and business establishments had taken place under the watch of the Delhi Police, directly under the control and supervision of the same Central government.
• Providing the government time to file FIRs “at an appropriate time” is deeply disturbing.
• The Court being the guardian of the Constitution and parens patriae of citizens of Delhi was bound to have acted with alacrity.
• Enforcement of law does not wait for “conducive” timings and must be set in motion forthwith by the authorities failing which the high court can and must set that machinery in action.

Conclusion:

• One cannot help feeling that the court has let the citizens down.
• The Centre represented by the country’s second highest law officer should also have been more circumspect. The proceedings have left a bitter taste in the minds of law abiding citizens.
• One hopes that the judiciary will wake up and protect the citizens at all costs in times of serious breakdown of constitutional machinery — and not leave them to fend for themselves.

  Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

  General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials

Prelims Questions:

Q1. With reference to the new Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), consider the following statements:
1. It is a 5.5-tonne class combat helicopter designed and developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) – a Defence Public Sector Undertaking (DPSU).
2. It is powered by two Shakti engines and inherits many technical features of the Advanced Light Helicopter.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: C
Mains Questions:
Q1. “Real duties are the result of the fulfilment of rights”. Critically analyse in the context of the Constitutional provisions related to the rights and duties.