9 High Courts and Supreme Courts ought to aim to prevent injustice. What is the use of post mortem?
Topics for discussion: Miscarriage of Justice, High Courts, Supreme Court, Constitution, A.P. Bifurcation
With due respect to the Supreme Court of India and the State High Courts in India, I am anguished to express my feelings as under:
Supreme Court and High Courts seem inclined to intervene only after an injustice takes place and refuse to intervene if the petitioners approach in advance.
Prevention of injustice, rather than some artificial correction after miscarriage of justice, ought to be the objective of a truly responsive Justice System.
Philosophy of Justice expects that courts have to intervene, when applicants approach ahead of the actual happening of injustice, if there are indications of the injustice taking place, prima facie.
Andhra Pradesh Bifurcation Bill serves as the best example of miscarriage of justice owing to refusal of High Courts and the Apex Court, in spite of prospective sufferers approaching the courts in advance.
Whenever the prospective sufferers approached, the courts said 'this is not the right time; approach at an appropriate time'. At least, the courts ought to have indicated that they would intervene suo motu. The circumstances were obvious enough to foresee that there was an impending possibility of unjust laws being enacted, ignoring a duly constituted State Assembly's opinion. But, the Courts didn't say that they will take up the matter suo motu.
The applicants ran across Hyderabad and Delhi seeking justice, but the justice never dawned. Bills were passed in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in a cruel manner. The Governments are now proceeding with their dictatorial whims and fancies.
"We do not think this is the appropriate stage for us to interfere. There is no change in circumstances between November 18 when we dismissed petitions on the same issue, and now. They can file appropriate petitions at the appropriate time,''Now, both the Houses of Parliament have passed the Bill, without any meaningful discussion. Bifurcation Process of the State has become nearly irreversible.
If a Court refuses to intervene before an enactment of a bill full of all types of unjust provisions, amidst the Executive and Opposition repeatedly declaring that they are going to get the bills passed by all means, and proceed with their unjust motives, how will the courts correct the enactments, after everything is irreversibly changed.
Just as a raped person cannot be restituted to the pre-rape virgin position, states once formed cannot be easily combined again and the offices shifted back, staff retransferred cannot be easily taken back to their original State etc. Will the court then say, everything is over, what we can do now at this stage?
The oft-repeated cliche quote 'Justice delayed is justice denied' becomes a reality.
When will the Supreme Court and State High Court intervene? (To continue revising this post).