Why does Justice Thakur not give the 'BCCI treatment' to the judiciary ? Physician, heal thyself
By Justice Markandey Katju
The New Jurisprudence
A new marvellous, creative jurisprudence has beenn developed by the Indian Supreme Court—that it is open to the Court to amend the Constitution, amend the law, make law, exercise executive functions, ignore binding precedents in their desire to do good ( despite the numerous decisions, which have been referred to in my report to the BCCI, which state the contrary )—in short do anything it likes, and to hell with the Constitution and the law.
In a series of decisions of the Supreme Court itself it has been stated that there is separation of powers in the Constitution, and judges should not pertform legislative or executive functions as these belong to the other two organs of the state.
Thus, in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Course vs. Chander Haas, 2007 ( see online ) the Supreme Court said :

"Judges should know their limits and not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility and not behave like Emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State the legislature, the executive and the judiciary must have respect for the others and must not encroach into each others domains"
But why should we care for outdated and obsolete principles like separation of powers ? After all, Montesquieu died a long time back. So a new jurisprudence must be developed to give judges the power of Emperors.
In the 2nd and 3rd Judges cases the Court by a judicial verdict substituted the existing Article 124(1) in the Constitution by a totally different provision, introducing a Collegium system for appointing judges unknown to the Constitution, which was described by Lord Cooke as ' a sleight of hand '.
Article 368 of the Constitution states that the Constitution can be amended by Parliament by two third majorities in both Houses. But the Supreme Court evidently believes that in the garb of interpretation it can amend the Constitution itself. Good luck to them.
Take another example.
Recognition to new Medical Colleges is to be done by the Central Govt. on the recommendation of the Medical Council of India, vide section 10A of the MCI Act. But the Supreme Court appointed a Lodha Committee, and practically empowered it to ignore the Medical Council of India Act which was enacted by Parliament. And the Lodha Committee is granting recognition, or recommending grant of recognition to the Central Govt.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/oversight-panel-puts-mci-findings-in-abeyance/article9027119.ece?w=alauto
How can the Lodha Committee grant or recommend such recognition ?
There is no provision in the MCI Act which says recognition, or recommending grant of recognition, is to be done by a committee appointed by the Supreme Court.

I had always believed that amendment of an Act of Parliament can only be done by Parliament itself.
But the new jurisprudential philosophy developed by our geniuses in the Supreme Court say that the Court can amend it. Bravo !
In the dahi handi case the Supreme Court said that no dahi handi will be more than 20 ft. high, and no one below 18 years of age will participate in it.
The question to be asked is : was there any law made by the legislature which imposes these restrictions ?

If there was none, how could such an order be passed by the Court ?
Justice Thakur, the CJI, in a speech said that the judiciary intervenes when the executive fails in its duties
http://www.firstpost.com/india/judiciary-intervenes-only-when-the-executive-fails-chief-justice-of-india-ts-thakur-2819932.html
But the judiciary also fails in its duty to decide cases expeditiously.
Often cases take decades to decide finally. People who get caught in litigation are often weeping because of 'tareekh' after 'tareekh' and no hearing.

Also, a large section of the judiciary has become corrupt.
So should the executive authorities tell the judges that since you have failed in your duty we will decide cases ?
Justice Thakur's argument cuts both ways. Those living in houses with glass windows should not throw stones at others.
In a case relating to the All India Football Federation Justice Thakur threatened that the 'BCCI treatment' may have to be given to the footbal.
Why does Justice Thakur not give the 'BCCI treatment' to the judiciary ?
Physician, heal thyself.
Oversight panel puts MCI findings in abeyance
Save

Save

Save

Hastakshep