NEW DELHI: From halting the privatization of two state firms to ordering justice for Muslim riot victims, India’s Supreme Court is steadily building a reputation as a tough and independent force willing to take on vested interests.
Through a series of controversial rulings and comments, it has battled governments and sparked vigorous debates on sensitive issues such as separate laws for minority Christians and Muslims.
Such activism, after a period of relative quiet, was inevitable in a country where the executive is too often seen as failing to uphold the rule of law, say lawyers and analysts.
Tuesday’s ruling to block the government selling stakes in two major oil companies without parliamentary approval dealt a major blow to an already troubled privatization programme and has again highlighted the court’s independence.
Just days earlier, it had rapped the Gujarat state government for failing to punish those behind bloody Hindu-Muslim clashes last year, telling the administration it should resign if it could not do better.
Gujarat is ruled by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which also leads the federal coalition government.
“There is a common thread running through both orders and that is to enforce the rule of law,” said political commentator Mahesh Rangarajan.
Although courts and the police are independent, powerful vested interests, including politicians, often try to use their influence to get want they want.
In Gujarat, not one person has been convicted over communal violence — the worst in India’s political history.
“Courts are not concerned either with economic policy, or with politics,” said Supreme Court lawyer Abhishek Singhvi.
“They have to give a verdict based on the provisions of the law, and the provisions of the law are staring the government in the face. The Gujarat government is getting it in the neck because of its obduracy.”
But the court has also upset the less powerful.
In July, it urged uniform personal laws for all Indians instead of separate rules for Muslims and Christians.
Hindu hardliners cheered the non-binding comment, but minorities said it infringed on their constitutional rights.
The court’s other controversial rulings include one saying public servants had no right to strike and another mandating Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for public transport in the now somewhat less polluted capital, New Delhi.
“We need more activism, not less,” said Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer at the Centre for Public Interest Litigation.—Reuters
