Justice AP Shah criticises Supreme Court’s approach in recent times
[4/28, 11:15] Sekarreporter: SIGN IN
HOME/CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK/JUSTICE AP SHAH CRITICISES SUPREME COURT’S APPROACH IN RECENT TIMES
WATCH LIVE
Horoscope: April 27, 2020
X
Justice AP Shah criticises Supreme Court’s approach in recent times
By Sunil Baghel, Mumbai Mirror | Updated: Apr 27, 2020, 11:39 IST
Justice AP Shah criticises Supreme Court’s approach in recent times
Representational image. Photo by Sanjay Hadkar / BCCL
In a criticism which minced no words, retired Justice AP Shah, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and former judge of the Bombay High Court, says the Supreme Court did not ask relevant questions on the issue of migrant labourers and that it “skirted the real fundamental rights issue in the case.”
Justice Shah, addressing a gathering of lawyers from across the country on a webinar last week, said, “The court is very capable of addressing these issues, but does not care to ask them, let alone address larger constitutional issues of reasonableness and proportionality. Pardon me for saying this, but for the privileged amongst us, including me, there is a huge disconnect in what we consider important and relevant to lead the life with dignity for ourself as compared for others. The Supreme Court’s observations highlighted this disconnect starkly, when it decided that all that India’s migrant labourers need is food.”
Postal staff helps migrant workers send money home
Shah was referring to public interest litigations filed in the Supreme Court on the mass exodus of migrant workers from different parts of the country. The PIL, among other things, sought minimum basic wage for these workers. The SC, during a hearing, reportedly asked why do labourers need money to buy food when they were being provided meals in camps.
Referring to these SC observations Shah said, “The court seems to think that the migrant labourers do not need money for anything other than food. They do not feel sick, they do not have family members, ageing parents, partners or young children who might need monthly stipend to survive. There is also a troubling presumption on the part of the court that the government is making the best decisions in these times.”
Uddhav Thackeray: 80 per cent Covid-19 patients in Maharashtra asymptomatic
Justice Shah was addressing a virtual seminar organised by Dhruve Liladhar and Co, Rashmikant and Partners, Hariani and Co, Universal Legal Associates and ALMT Legal, in association with Bombay Incorporated Law Society, on the topic “Fundamental rights and Constitutionalism in times of crisis.” Shah also referred to SC hearings on the issue of lockdown in Jammu and Kashmir post the abrogation of article 370 and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and criticised its approach in those cases as well.
Shah, on the point of coronavirus pandemic, clarified that the SC cannot form a policy or monitor a pandemic and that is the job of governments, he, however, said that the court can intervene, as the SC has “time and again said that the right to life does not merely include a right to animal existence, but a life with dignity.”
Kandivali society buys supplies for migrant workers
He then compared the situation from recent times with something that had happened when he was still a practising lawyer in the early 1980s. “Here, the glory days of the Indian judiciary come to mind, when the question of the right to work, and livelihood came up. In one of the cases, the then all-powerful Chief Minister of Maharashtra AR Antulay decided to deport all pavement dwellers and homeless persons out of Bombay. Justice Lentin, of the Bombay High Court, himself went into the streets to understand the plight of these people, refusing to accept the government’s claims, in the face of vehement opposition from the executive. This judiciary was willing to hold its own against a powerful government, and stand up for what it believed was right. Now, I wonder where that judiciary has gone.”
