Friday’s observations made by a division bench of the Bombay high court in the context of the Lokpal Bill raise concerns over free speech and the right to form associations. The court was hearing a case related to the planned demonstration by members of Team Anna and India Against Corruption on the Lokpal Bill.
Indian Parliament
Parliament is seized of various considerations on the issue of creating a Lokpal and Lokayuktas. Team Anna wants to protest, as the bill is not taking quite the shape it envisaged. An NGO affiliated with Anna Hazare’s team approached the high court to direct the local authorities to allocate a place for the protest. The same NGO has also asked the court to prevent authorities from charging commercial rates for using the premises (commercial rates are usually charged for events which could make a profit like exhibitions and shows).
But it appears the judges couldn’t remain confined to the issues being placed before them. According to the Press Trust of India, here’s some of what the court said: “It is not judicable. If we pass an order allowing your petition then even we will be interfering with the functioning of Parliament,†a division bench of Justices P B Majmudar and Mridula Bhatkar observed.
“We can’t allow parallel canvassing when Parliament is seized with debate on the bill. You can propagate the bill sitting at home. Till now the bill has not been passed. No one knows what form and what features it will have. Is public debate permissible at this stage?†the court asked.
These sound bites from their lordships are disturbing. Even if one were to concede that some of the demands being made by Team Anna on the Lokpal are unreasonable, the judiciary certainly has no right to stifle debate and prevent people from peacefully gathering to demonstrate. Courts can’t decide if a public debate on anything is timely. Neither the constitution nor any law prevents citizens from debating a topic that it is pending before Parliament.
This is precisely the time for a public debate on the Lokpal. If it becomes law, there is lesser value to the discussion, if any. At least lawmakers will hear from their constituents before enacting a law.
Such observations from judges, even if they have no legally binding value, are unwelcome. High courts are custodians of citizens’ rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The high court should have taken a cue from the Supreme Court on the Ramlila Maidan incident where the court suo motu initiated an investigation into the Delhi police’s action taken against sleeping protestors. Constitutional courts are meant to step in when fundamental rights are infringed.
The high court should have exercised restraint and not allowed itself to be drawn into the debate between Parliament and Team Anna (which has virtually anointed itself as the representative of civil society). Parliament can form whatever law it wants. Citizens have a right to let lawmakers know what they feel. Ultimately Parliament will have the last word. And the courts have no place in this debate. At least not until the bill becomes law, if ever.
