Read two pieces(no link available) by two columnists in the Hindustan Times dated jJuly 9 &10, both - interestingly - criticizing the role of the Supreme Court in the same fashion. I wonder if the editor by any chance briefed them to cover the same topic, or it happened just coincidentally.
So what is wrong with the the Supreme Court? Chanakya says it's overreaching, and that the Court can't act as an ideologue. Anil Dharker in his piece asks rather insolently :Does the Supreme Court want to be the Government of India?
As you see, both Mr Dharker and Chanakya talk like they are the spokesperson of the Government, or more than that. Some time ago, if my memory serves me right, our lameduck PM spoke out against the judiciary in the similar fashion, but not in this buttoned-down manner.
When the Government can't address the problems of the common man, what step can you take against it? Nothing really. And if the judiciary - in this case Supreme Court - slams the government and alongside mouths some wisdom, what's wrong with it? Did you expect it to endorse Salwa Judum, the black,repressive act? Did you expect it to approve the forcible land acquisition of the Mayabati Government from the poor?
The Supreme Court, not the Government, now proves to be a care-giver to the poor. No political party, not even the leftists, has any real agenda for the poor. Why do you react when the SC says that the poor should not be marginalised ? Is it because it bothers your mindset, and pushes you into thinking about the awful realities India is embedded in?
To the cursed life of ordinary and honest citizens, the Supreme Court brings cheers every time it pronounces some statement.
The majority would not lose out on anything if the SC acts as an ideologue or really gets to be the Government of India in the process. Let be it.
