Judicial Evasion

Source: This post on Judicial Evasion has been created based on “Sambhal and the perils of judicial evasion” published in The Hindu on 11^th Dec 2024.

UPSC Syllabus topic : GS 1 Society – Secularism

Context: The article critically examines the Supreme Court of India’s reluctance to take decisive action on sensitive legal and constitutional matters, particularly in cases involving communal and religious disputes. Judicial Evasion

What is the concept of ‘judicial inactivism’?

Judicial inactivism refers to courts’ failure to fulfill their “adjudicative duty” to decide cases. Judicial inaction can have consequences as significant as judicial overreach and is often harder to detect, making it more worrisome.

What is the issue in the Sambhal Masjid case?

1. The Supreme Court of India recently deferred a decision in the Sambhal Masjid case (Uttar Pradesh).
2. The Court directed that the matter, concerning a survey of the mosque, be put on hold and referred the issue to the Allahabad High Court.
3. While this order brought temporary relief, it is an example of judicial deferment, which avoids addressing the core issue.

Why is judicial deferment problematic in this case?

1. Judicial deferment is concerning because it perpetuates uncertainty, particularly in cases involving communal issues.
2. The Sambhal Masjid case is tied to a larger failure by the judiciary to address the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which seeks to preserve the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
3. The Act is being violated by ongoing legal challenges, and the Supreme Court has failed to decisively address its validity.

How has the Supreme Court handled similar cases in the past?

The Supreme Court has exhibited a pattern of judicial deferment in recent years:

1. Shaheen Bagh Protest (2020): The Court formed a committee to mediate between protesters and the government without addressing the legal challenge to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
2. Farm Laws (2021): The Court formed an expert committee to mediate between protesting farmers and the government without deciding on the laws’ validity. Ultimately, the farm laws were repealed due to public protests, not judicial action.

In these instances, the Court avoided its duty to decide, leading to uncertainty and political unrest.

How does the Sambhal case relate to earlier judicial failures?

1. In the Sambhal Masjid case, the Court failed to address the central issue—the validity of the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
2. This mirrors past cases, such as the Ayodhya dispute (2019), where the Court avoided decisive action on legal principles, instead offering a compromise that ignored the constitutional values embedded in the Act.
3. The Court’s reluctance to uphold the Act or even adjudicate the validity of such legal challenges only perpetuates uncertainties.

What was the Supreme Court’s stance in the Ayodhya judgment?

1. The Supreme Court, in the Ayodhya case (2019), acknowledged the importance of the Places of Worship Act, stating it reflects India’s commitment to secularism and equality of all religions.
2. The Court also recognized that the Act prevents historical grievances from being used to stir up present-day religious tensions.
3. However, the judgment allowed the construction of a temple at the Babri Masjid site, which indirectly contradicted the very principles the Act sought to uphold.

What is the role of judicial will in such cases?

1. Judicial will is crucial for upholding constitutional values and ensuring legal stability.
2. In the Sambhal Masjid case, the Court’s failure to assert the validity of the Places of Worship Act reflects a lack of judicial will.
3. The upcoming hearing on December 12 offers the Court another opportunity to rectify this and decisively address the legal issues, including the legality of the ongoing challenges to the Act.

What is the broader implication of judicial inaction in such matters?

1. Judicial inaction undermines the rule of law and allows political and communal forces to exploit legal uncertainties for their own agendas.
2. By avoiding decisive action on matters like the Places of Worship Act, the Court risks perpetuating divisiveness, rather than ensuring the protection of secularism and social harmony as envisioned by the Constitution.