While I had just concluded my previous blog “How cheap we take Human Rights of a Common Man”, I came across following two interesting judgments of “Kerala High Court” and “Supreme court of India” protecting judicial officials for their errors of judgments which may cause harassment, agony, mental torture and gross violation of Human and Fundamental Rights of innocents. To my mind such orders fully absolves judiciary from its responsibility and accountability. While law puts responsibility by putting reasonable restrictions on citizens on exercising even their guaranteed Fundamental Rights, but it seems judiciary donot want to follow the same dictum…..
Article 21. Protection Of Life And Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The object of the fundamental right under Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law by state or acts under the authority of the State which are not according to procedure established by law.. Constitution donot define ‘state’ in a restricted sense, it includes Government Departments, Legislature, Administration, Local Authorities exercising statutory powers and so on so forth, so also judiciary.
The fundamental right under Article 21 has been described as heart of fundamental rights by the Apex Court and its main object is that before a person is deprived of his life or personal liberty by the State, the procedure established by law must be strictly followed. Right to Life means the right to lead meaningful, complete and dignified life free from exploitation.
As far as Personal Liberty is concerned , it means freedom from physical restraint of the person by personal incarceration or otherwise and it includes all the varieties of rights other than those provided under Article 19 of the Constitution.Procedure established by Law means the law enacted by the State.
The state is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the fundamental right of any person, particularly when he belongs to the weaker section of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. Similarly its unambiguous responsibility of judiciary to bring to book who so ever’s negligence or failure to act lawfully, diligently has lead to gross violation of Fundamental Rights.
Under the light of above, I request readers to go though following judgments and decide for themselves do our judiciary be allowed to unlimited powers sans accountability or reasonable restrictions?
Do you agree with following logic of High Court, for overriding rights of citizens by acquiring absolute and unchecked power : The maintenance of the independence of the judiciary being a larger public interest which overrides the public law rights of individual citizens, ……..
Case 1– A Judicial officer cannot be penalized for passing erroneous orders: Kerala HC
http://www.livelaw.in/a-judicial-officer-cannot-be-penalized-for-passing-erroneous-orders-kerala-high-court/
Case 2– Even a wrong order should not be visited with Adverse Remarks against Judge; SC
http://www.livelaw.in/even-wrong-order-not-visited-adverse-remarks-judge-sc/
One can agree that judicial officers can make mistake or error of judgment, but such verdicts which restricts scrutiny of lower courts decisions by upper courts (and need be passing adverse remarks) will not only make them autocratic but detrimental to bring correction in junior judiciary. I find following quotes worth sharing:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” ‘John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton’
“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.” ‘Lord Acton’
“There is no doubt that if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
sharmajeeblog 