New Delhi: Confusion was the order of the day on Tuesday as the Supreme Court and the Delhi High court struggled to understand Jusitce Katju's comments on judicial activism.
In Supreme Court, Justice S B Sinha refused to hear a PIL on rehabilitation of under trial women and children in prison, as he wasn’t sure if the court had jurisdiction to hear the case in light of Justice Katju's judgment on Monday.
A court in Delhi High court too adjourned hearing of a case relating to begging in public places till it had studied the SC's comments on judicial activism.
On Monday, Justice Katju had cautioned his colleagues that some judgments encroached into legislative and executive functions that were unconstitutional.
The pitfall---rehabilitation of the under trial women and children may have to wait for a while as also the future of beggars in public places
Lawyers are also not happy with these turns of events.
"The court should interfere in PILs and especially maters where the downtrodden and poor are involved,” says Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court, Indira Jaisingh.
“The refusal of the SC is grossly improper. Justice Katju's observations are only to the effect that the judiciary should not overreach but he hasn’t said that the judiciary cant interfere with any executive or legislative action however improper it might be,” says Lawyer, Supreme Court, Prashant Bhushan.
OBC reservation case had unleashed a heated debate on judiciary vs executive. But now, this battle for turf is spilling over to the common man as to will his interest be compromised as the two pillars fight it out.