Indian Judiciary comparatively far more restrained than other jurisdictions, Justice Madan Lokur

The Judiciary in India exercises restraint to a greater extent as compared to those of many other countries across the globe, Justice Madan Lokur recently opined..Justice Lokur said so during his address at the second JB Dadachanji Memorial Debate organized by ILA Pasrich & Company. While Attorney General KK Venugopal’s keynote address was on the topic of Constitutional morality, Justice Lokur spoke on the topic of judicial review..Citing the example of Sri Lanka, where the court of appeal restrained its Prime Minister and Cabinet from functioning in their respective offices, Justice Lokur spoke about the Indian Judiciary’s restraint:.“If the (Supreme) Court tells the Prime Minister of India not to go to office, the (Indian) Judiciary has had it. But in Sri Lanka, they (court) did that, not the Supreme Court but the Court of Appeal which in our language is High Court.”.Besides examining the actions of the government and the Executive, the Court also has the duty to look into the inaction of the administration, Justice Lokur said, delving into the scope of judicial review of Courts in India..He, however, stated that when the Court does exercise its power of judicial review to question the inaction of the Executive, it is often termed as “judicial activism”, “judicial overreach” or “hyper-activism”..“When things go wrong and Parliament does not legislate as it should, and when it does legislate but the Executive does not implement the law, what does a citizen do? The citizen has found the remedy of coming to the Court through PIL”.Justice Lokur pointed out that while the Legislature has enacted laws for the benefit of the public, a lot of the authorities provided by these statues either do not exist or have no people to man them. It is at this point when the citizens have no option that they knock on the Court’s doors, he said..While the scope of judicial review has been expanded and the courts have been criticized for it, the Indian Judiciary is a highly restrained one, Justice Lokur said..“A Court in the Netherlands entertained a petition filed by a 69-year-old man wanting to be declared he is 49-years-old. Imagine Courts in India entertaining something like that”, Justice Lokur said citing one of many examples..Justice Lokur gave more such examples from the USA, whose courts have taken up matters ranging from suing the Governor of Rhode Island for failing to discharge the Constitutional responsibility of preparing students as informed citizens, to the controversy surrounding the appointment of the Attorney General under the Trump administration..He pointed out that litigation of this nature could not be entertained by the Indian Judiciary lest it is termed “hyper-activism”. Concluding his address, Justice Lokur said,.“When we criticize the Judiciary for this ‘judicial activism’ or raise fingers at the Judiciary for exceeding its power and saying ‘judicial overreach’, ‘hyper-activism’, we should look at the conditions that are prevailing in India, the extent to which the Judiciary has been restrained in some respects and see how far the Judiciary in other countries have gone in the matter of judicial review. I think we are comparatively far more restrained than other jurisdictions.”.Watch the video: