|
ENVIRONMENT: CLEAN DELHI
EXECUTIVE VERSUS JUDICIARY
Fuelling Contempt
You could say the
greenhouse effect takes on a new meaning with an increasingly proactive
judiciary leaving politicians hot under the collar. As the mercury rises
in anticipation of another withering Delhi summer, temperatures have already
reached boiling point in the politician versus Supreme Court tangle over
the 1998 CNG verdict. The Government expectedly failed to stick to the
March 31, 2001 deadline. As mobs burnt buses and frustrated commuters
stoned cars in the transport nightmare that resulted, Delhi Chief Minister
Sheila Dikshit threw discretion and decorum to the winds.
 On
April 3, she said buses possessing merely the CNG conversion booking receipts
and copies of their affidavits would be allowed to ply in clear violation
of the apex court order which made a special permit mandatory. She also
accused the court of "taking an indifferent view" of the matter.
The court responded by taking strong exception to the statement, with
Chief Justice A.S. Anand describing it as an open "war on the judiciary".
|
COUNTDOWN TO CHAOS
|
|
|
JUNE 1995: Lawyer M.C.Mehta expands on his earlier petition
bringing vehicular pollution to the Supreme Court's notice and calls
for action.
JULY 1998: Supreme Court orders Delhi government to explore
various option to curb vehicular pollution.
NOVEMBER 1998: The Bhure Lal Committee formed by the state
recommends CNG as the fuel of choice and even lays down time schedules
for conversion. Based on this court fixes April 1, 2001as deadline.
MARCH 1999: State floats first global tender for conversion.
One company selected.
MAY 2000: State wakes up to the urgency and desperately
places orders for new CNG buses. By then it is just too late.
|
|
This is not the first time the courts and the
executive have locked horns over environment and public health. Tough
clean-up decisions were given by the apex court regarding the Yamuna (1994-95)
and the relocation of polluting industries (1996-97). While most citizens
are enraged at the Government's inability to provide transport in the
wake of the CNG crisis, few are blaming the courts. But what is the legal
community's verdict on judicial activism?
Retired Delhi High Court judge H.L. Anand feels
the court's well-intentioned move has been compromised by the order's
stringency. "There has to be a better way to introduce CNG,"
agrees Supreme Court lawyer Indira Jaisingh. "It's difficult to guess
why the court must stick to the last date when it causes grief to so many."
|
|
|
|
|
"The courts have
not been listening to the elected government."
Sheila Dikshit, Delhi CM
|
The issue has also reopened the debate over whether
the apex court is encroaching upon the executive's turf. Says Anand: "While
the executive has collapsed and no excuses can be made for them, the Supreme
Court is not justified in issuing what is almost a firman." Adds
Jaisingh: "These are matters best left to the administrators."
On the other side of the fence stands most of
the close-knit legal community, whose members, like Supreme Court lawyer
Rani Jethmalani, feel the Delhi Government's bravado is a "knee-jerk
reaction" and "the judiciary should continue to assert itself".
Senior Supreme Court lawyer B.L. Vadehra is incensed at those who point
fingers at the apex court. Reacting to Dikshit's words he says, "It
is a dishonest stand taken by the chief minister. They had three years,
but could not deliver."
|
|
|
|
"I feel hurt by their
statements. They are opening a war on the judiciary."
Chief Justice A.S. Anand
|
|
Vadehra's disgust was echoed by Additional Solicitor-General
Kirit Raval, who has salvaged the situation several times for the Delhi
Government during the CNG debates. Raval withdrew from the state's case
after its defiant remarks. Says Raval: "People's faith resides in
the judiciary and it should not come under attack."
It's a reflection of popular perceptions in a
country where the judiciary is vested with parental authority. Retired
Supreme Court judge Kuldeep Singh, the original "Green Judge",
scoffs at those who urge judicial restraint. "If the Government does
not cooperate you cannot lay the blame for citizens' suffering at the
court's door," he says. The stage is now set for a potentially damaging
confrontation.
-Shuchi Sinha
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives