"No, no…then we are accused of interfering with legislative and executive functions"

"No, no…then we are accused of interfering with legislative and executive functions" - Justice Gavai

The Supreme Court on Monday humorously addressed growing accusations of judicial overreach during two separate case hearings. While considering a PIL against streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon over alleged obscene content, Justice BR Gavai remarked sarcastically, "No, no...then we are accused of interfering with legislative and executive functions." When the petitioner persisted, the judge quipped, "List it after two weeks - and dismiss it then," drawing laughter in the courtroom. The bench eventually agreed to hear the matter next week while directing the petitioner to serve copies to the Union government.

Earlier in the day, Justice Gavai made similar comments while hearing an urgent plea for paramilitary deployment in West Bengal following violence related to the Waqf Act amendment. "You want us to issue a mandamus to the President? As it is, we are facing allegations of encroaching into executive domain," Justice Gavai observed. Despite initial reluctance, the court later listed the matter for hearing on April 22.

These judicial remarks come amid increasing tensions between the judiciary and executive branches. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently criticized judges for having "no accountability," calling Article 142 of the Constitution a "nuclear missile against democratic forces." BJP MP Nishikant Dubey went further, blaming Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna for "all civil wars" in the country following Supreme Court rulings on gubernatorial powers.

The Supreme Court's lighthearted yet pointed comments reflect the judiciary's cautious approach as it navigates accusations of exceeding its constitutional mandate. With the government intensifying its scrutiny of judicial decisions, the delicate balance of power between India's democratic institutions remains a contentious issue. Both cases - the OTT regulation PIL and West Bengal deployment plea - will proceed to hearings in the coming days.

Comments

India’s Extradition Treaties: How They Impact the Vijay Mallya & Nirav Modi Cases

Introduction Extradition is a critical tool in international law that enables countries to hand over fugitives to jurisdictions where they face criminal charges. India has signed extradition treaties with over 50 countries and extradition arrangements with 11 others to curb financial crimes, terrorism, and other serious offenses. However, high-profile cases like Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi have tested India's extradition mechanisms and diplomatic relations. This article explores India's extradition laws, its treaties, and the challenges faced in these landmark cases. Understanding Extradition Laws in India 1. The Extradition Act, 1962 The primary legal framework governing extradition in India is T he Extradition Act, 1962 . This Act provides the conditions and procedures for extradition between India and foreign nations. Extradition Treaty Countries : India has formal agreements with over 50 countries , including the UK, USA, UAE, and Canada , which provide a legal basis for...

The Role of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Framing the Indian Constitution

Introduction Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, popularly known as the architect of the Indian Constitution, played a pivotal role in drafting and shaping the fundamental law of independent India. As the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, he was instrumental in laying the foundation of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. His contributions not only ensured legal safeguards for marginalized communities but also established India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. In this blog, we will explore Dr. Ambedkar’s contributions to the making of the Indian Constitution, his vision, the challenges he faced, and his lasting impact on Indian democracy. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: A Visionary Leader Born on April 14, 1891, Dr. Ambedkar was a social reformer, economist, and legal expert. His early experiences with caste-based discrimination fueled his determination to uplift the downtrodden and establish a legal system based on equality and justice. He earned multiple degrees, includi...

R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884): A Landmark Case on Necessity Defense

Introduction The 1884 case of R v. Dudley and Stephens (14 QBD 273) is one of the most pivotal rulings in English criminal law, specifically regarding the Defense of Necessity in murder cases . This landmark judgment established the legal precedent that necessity cannot be invoked as a defense for murder , even in dire, life-threatening circumstances. Case Background: Survival at Sea In July 1884, Thomas Dudley, Edward Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker (a 17-year-old cabin boy) were left adrift after their yacht, Mignonette , sank. For over 20 days, the men survived on limited resources, including turnips and a turtle they managed to catch. As the situation worsened and Parker became gravely weak, Dudley and Stephens resolved to kill and consume Parker in order to survive. Although Brooks abstained from participating in Parker's death, he later consumed Parker's flesh. On the 24th day, the survivors were rescued by a passing ship. Upon their return to England, Dudley and St...

The Legal Catalyst

Search This Blog