Politicians and powerful sections within the legal fraternity have often protested against the so-called ‘judicial activism’ and judgments that have gone against the whims of political decision-makers. It is well known that powerful political groups have always succeeded in controlling the judiciary by creating an atmosphere of distrust against the actions of judges. M. Karunanidhi, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, created such an atmosphere of great political hostility against the Supreme Court after it stayed the implementation of a new law providing for 27 per cent reservations for OBCs in institutions of higher education on April 24 this year.

Karunanidhi was not alone in his criticism of the judges’ action. A very powerful lobby of OBC chief ministers had also demanded that the judiciary should not have a veto power over unanimous decisions of the Indian parliament. Politicians can use hostile public opinion to curtail the independence of the judiciary, which remains the only hope for justice for victims of governmental arbitrariness.

A few facts may be mentioned to substantiate the argument that ordinary citizens, despite enjoying the protection of constitutional rights, cannot defend themselves against the blatant misuse of governmental powers and rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Without judicial protection, the rule of law gets reduced to a mere formality.

Take, for example, two recent instances. On July 11, the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings of a Madhya Pradesh sessions court, which it saw as making a mockery of the trial concerning the murder of Professor H.S. Sabharwal, allegedly by ABVP activists who have been patronised by the BJP government in that state. The Supreme Court expressed the fear that this fake trial may become ‘another Best Bakery’ case, which was ‘transferred’ by the Supreme Court from Gujarat to Maharashtra. What would happen to helpless citizens without the Supreme Court’s intervention? It is important to stress that ‘criminal cases’ are transferred from one state to another only if it is patently clear that it would not serve the ends of justice to have the trial conducted in the state where it occurred.

... contd.