Amidst wide spread corruption in polity, beurocracy and overall society, the judiciary is left as the last resort of the hapless law abiding citizens. Though not completely beyond doubts, it still carry substantial faith in the minds of people. This has put tremendous pressure on judiciary to to expand its gambit. Its been called to offer verdict on issues which have no reason to be brought inside courtrooms. Some of the judicial decisions in such context drew criticism and gave rise to the term 'judicial activism'.
This is an interesting on this issue. Apex court in its earlier decision had framed guidelines for election of students' unions in colleges and universities. This decision was being reviwed by a 2-judge bench. This bench rejected the argument of Solicitor General, who is amicus cureau in the matter, that such directions could be passed to meet pressing social needs. The bench referred the amtter to a five-judge Constitution bench on the crucial question as to whether courts can frame and implement laws which are under the exclusive domain of the legislature and the executive.
The bench said the issue needs to be examined by a Constitution bench as it involved "questions of grave Constitutional importance."
The issues to be examined by the Constitution Bench are--Whether the interim order of the apex court on 22nd September directing implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee report was valid,
Second, whether it amounted to judicial legislation.
Third, whether judiciary can legislate and, if so, what is the permissible limit.
And fourth, whether judiciary can cite pressing social problems to pass such judicial directions
- taken from www.ddinews.gov.in
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment