INDIA SPECIAL/JUDICIARY TO THE RESCUE
Order, order, order
India’s judiciary is willing to tread where
the government fears to, says Sheela Bhatt
In the last seven days, the Indian judiciary took three major steps that shook the governments in New Delhi, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh to their cores.
The judiciary slammed the ruling Congress party, the
main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and Uttar
Pradesh’s ruling Bahujan Samaj Party. The judiciary
slammed the Indian government’s economic policy that
pushes privatization and globalization.
In the case — filed by lawyer Ram Jethamalani and oth-
ers — related to millions of rupees of black money
stashed abroad, India’s supreme court tore into Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government. The
court accused the United Progressive Alliance coalition
government of being ‘neo-liberal,’ and running a ‘soft
state’. It said the government is laggard in investigation of
black money, particularly in the case of businessman
Hasan Ali who is accused of stashing up billions of dol-
lars abroad illegally. In a clear indictment of the govern-
ment and a clear sign of distrust in its intentions, India’s
apex court set up a Special Investigation Team consisting
of two retired judges. The court said, ‘So far, no signifi-
cant attempt has been made to investigate and verify the
same (case). This is a further cause for the grave concerns
of this court, and points to the need for continued, effec-
tive and day-to-day monitoring by a SIT constituted by
this court, and acting on behalf, behest and direction of
this court.’
This is as hard as a court can hit. And India — galva-
nized by a new breed of activists like Anna Hazare and
yoga guru Baba Ramdev — has again turned its collective
attention on the issues of corruption and ill-gotten
wealth.
In the case related to the ‘land loot’ by Chief Minister
Mayawati’s government in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh,
the supreme court accused states of running a sinister
campaign to grab the land of poor farmers. The court
quashed a 2007 UP government notification to acquire
156.3 hectares of land in Greater Noida, which is near
Delhi. More than 6,000 investors, who had paid a sum of
around Rs 1 billion ($200 million) to about 50 builders
to buy homes, were affected.
Senior counsel P P Rao, appearing for one of the
builders, tried to argue that the proposed apartment
complexes were being constructed for the poor and mid-
dle class.
‘Do you think judges live in a fool’s paradise?’ Justice A K
Ganguly shot back. ‘Look at your own brochure. It says
facilities include swimming pool, spa, tennis court, bad-
minton court, beauty parlor, Ayurvedic massage, etc. Are
these for poor people? Land is given for development,
which must be inclusive. The state is taking advantage of
the law and using it against the poor. The state is doing a
totally anti-people thing. The purpose of land acquisition is
being defeated. The poorest man in society should benefit
in the public interest but you (thestate) are responding in
such a way that the poor are driven out.’
Justice Ganguly, like his colleague Justice G S Singhvi,
criticized globalization. He said, ‘What farmers get are
lathis and litigation. Men are arrested and women are
raped. In the name of globalization, poor people are being
marginalized. Why are terrorist activities increasing? Why
are so many people committing suicide? They are pushed
to the wall. The Land Acquisition Act has become an
engine for oppression of the common man. You (thestate)
have virtually demolished every area for the benefit of a
particular society for which you work.’
Just how deep the judiciary struck at the lawmakers was
evident from the week’s third landmark judgment, which
united political adversaries the Congress party and the BJP.
ernment is not building capacity to control social unrest.
The court also asked the Chhattisgarh government to
immediately ‘cease and desist from using SPOs in any manner or form in any activities directly or indirectly aimed at
controlling, countering, mitigating or otherwise eliminating Maoist/Naxalite activities.’ If, as per the court’s directive, the funding is stopped to these SPOs, the Salwa
Judum movement — the practice of arming some villagers
against others, which has come in for widespread condemnation — will die a natural death.
That these landmark judgments have hit where it hurts
was evident from Indian Telecommunications Minister
Kapil Sibal’s statement that Public Interest Litigations are
‘not doing good for the constitution or the government.’
A senior law officer, speaking to India Abroad on the con-
dition of anonymity, went further. He said that if one reads
the judgment of Justice B Sudershan Reddy and Justice
Surinder Singh Nijjar on the black money issue, it is very
clear that the judges are “Marxists” clearly against “neo-lib-
eral policies”. Most senior Congress party leaders, the offi-
cer said, are “aghast” at the “judicial activism”.
“Who needs Left parties in New Delhi when you have
Communists and leftwing judges?” quipped the officer,
