Skip to main content

"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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Doctrine of Arbitrariness Under Article 14: Landmark E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu Case Explained

Introduction Equality is the cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, enshrined under Article 14 , which guarantees “equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision forms the foundation of India’s legal structure, ensuring fairness, non-discrimination, and uniformity in applying laws. The interpretation of Article 14 evolved significantly over time, especially with the landmark case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) , which introduced the Doctrine of Arbitrariness. This legal turning point  expanded the meaning of equality beyond mere classification. Understanding Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 14 of the Constitution of India states: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This provision ensures that all individuals, irrespective of race, religion, caste, gender, or place of birth, are treated equally under the...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Coalgate Scam (2014) – Supreme Court’s Verdict on Coal Block Allocations in India

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...
Post a Comment
Read more