The recent criticism of the Supreme Court is not so much out of concern for institutional comity and separation of powers, but of concern over judicial review of ‘sensitive’ matters.

The Congress government of Narasimha Rao found no ‘activism’ in the Supreme Court overseeing the shilanayas in December 1991. A little known fact is that the then attorney told the court that the armed forces were ready, awaiting the court’s directions. If the army was to fire upon the kar sevaks, it would be expedient if their deployment was ordered by the Supreme Court. Two judgments that have caused especial alarm tell their own story. These are the ‘sealing case’ — a direction to adhere to the town planning laws in Delhi (notwithstanding its unpopular consequences, not to mention its consequences on properties of those in office, as exposed in The Indian Express) — and the judgment holding that no sanction from the government is required to prosecute a minister on the grounds that he has received a bribe, since receiving bribes is no part of their official duties.

No critic has been able to point out as to how the court went beyond the established parameters of judicial review. The objection clearly is to the court directing the government to place the law above populism or political interest.

The attempts of the Supreme Court to ensure that the forest advisory committee includes established environmentalists prompted an additional solicitor general to suggest that the court does not respect other institutions. He is partly right. Corruption and abuse of power have become institutional, and that is one institution the court, mercifully, does not respect.

... contd.