Articles 141, 142 and 144 of the Constitution of India ensure that the Supreme Court is a uniquely powerful institution in our country and has wide powers conferred onto it vide Articles 32 and 136. Such unrestrained power without any accountability to the People of India, makes it autocratic, conceited and even egotistical in its general behavior. While being accused of failing at times to perform its required judicial functions, the SC has made it it’s unrestrained business to interfere in matters that pertain exclusively to the executive branch of the government, the council of ministers selected from the elected members of Parliament, by the citizens of India.
Former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, had stated in 2007 that “The dividing line between judicial activism and judicial overreach is a thin one. However, substituting mandamus (a type of judicial writ) with a take-over of the functions of another organ may, at times, become a case of over-reach. These are all delicate issues which need to be addressed cautiously. All organs, including the judiciary, must ensure that the dividing lines between them are not breached. This makes for a harmonious functioning.” It is not only the problem of over-reach of the judiciary but also of avoiding its primary responsibility, that of delivery of justice within a reasonable time frame. All this overreach is possible because judges are not made accountable to the citizens under the current framework of our Constitution.
When challenged with the issue of pendency of cases in various courts, the standard response from the judiciary is to blame the situation on lack of adequate judges and infrastructure to overcome this problem. With a financial budget of Rs 3173.36 crore in 2019-20 which was revised downwards to Rs 2200 crore, mainly on account of the expenses incurred in the holding of Lok Sabha elections in May 2019, (since the Election Commission's expenditure comes under the budget for the Ministry of Law and Justice), the judicial system in our country is not starved for funds.
The above mentioned budgetary allocations by the Union Government for administrative and other expenditure of the Supreme Court of India includes the provision for salaries and travel expenses for the Chief Justice and other Judges, staff and officers of the Registry including the departmental canteen, charges for professional service towards personnel deployed for security and expenditure on establishment related needs including stationery, office equipment, security equipment, maintenance of CCTV and printing of annual Report of the Supreme Court.
In January 2018, the salary of the Chief Justice of India was revised upwards from Rs. 1 lakh per month to the current salary of Rs. 2.8 lakhs per month; a hike of nearly 200%; and salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of the high courts was revised upwards from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 2.50 lakh per month. Additionally, the Chief Justice receives a Rs 16.8 lakh-plus dearness allowance, the Supreme Court Judges a Rs 15 lakh-plus DA and high court judges Rs 13.5 lakh-plus DA. Their gratuity is around Rs 20 lakh.
Tax payers can argue that the judges are paid handsomely for the positions that they hold and for the primary task to which they are appointed; viz, dispensing justice to those in need, and dispensing it within a reasonable time frame. They seem to have forgotten the legal maxim that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. Whether it was the 1993 interference in an then ongoing anti-terrorism military operation in Hazratbal, Kashmir; or that It took seven long years to arrive at conclusion on the Narmada Bachao Andalan case, or its ruling in the Ram Jnama Bhumi case, or its judgement of Diwali firecrackers, or the appointment of an empowered committee in the matter of environmental cases that created a parallel executive apparatus, or its intervention to form a committee to run the Medical Council of India; many such instances of judicial over-reach have been noted.
The Supreme Court is able to do all this because it is not held to account for all its actions. The judiciary is often doing with impunity what the executive could not or can never do, since the executive is answerable to the people. All these instances seem to indicate distrust, and in some cases a disdain for democratically elected institutions. Even more disturbing is the message that it sends to the executive branch. When the Supreme Court decides to intervene in the implementation of policy as decided by elected parliamentarians, it is asserting itself as a dictatorial institution that can interfere and supersede the democratic process of the nation, while being safe within its constitutional protection that allows it to be unanswerable to the citizens of the country, the very taxpayers who afford its judges a comfortable and secured lifestyle.
