Criminal, anti-terror law should not be misused to extinguish differences of opinion: Chandrachud justice

New Delhi: Criminal law including anti-terror legislation should not be misused to extinguish differences or harassment of citizens, the Supreme Court judge D Y Chandrachud said while underlining the role of the Apex court in protecting basic rights in a challenging time.
Observing that the Supreme Court of India played the role of “counter-majority”, justice Chandrachud said the upper court duty to “protect the rights of socio-economic minorities”.
“The Supreme Court must act as a role as Sentinel in QUI VIVIVE (alert guardian) and respond to the call of constitutional conscience and this role that encourages it to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, starting from a pandemic on the resurrection of intolerance, the features we find throughout the world, “He said, adding that some interventions are called” judicial activism “or” juice provision “.
Chandrachud’s justice made this comment on Monday while talking about “the role of the Supreme Court in protecting fundamental rights in challenging time” at a conference organized by the American Bar Association with the Community of Indian law firm and the Cartered Institute of Arbitrator.
He was called the APEX court order at the prison decongesti during the covid pandemic and said that while it was important that the prison was de-maccested because they were very vulnerable to being hotspots for viruses, but as important to check why they were solid in the first place.
Referring to his assessment in the case of Arnab Goswami, Judge Chandrachud said: “Criminal law, including anti-terror law should not be misused to extinguish differences of opinion or for citizen harassment”.
“As I noted in the Arnab Goswami vs.
Maharashtra & OR situation, ‘Our court must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defense against the seizure of citizen freedoms.
Deprivation of freedom even for one day is too much.
We must always pay attention to systemic implications deeper than our decision, “he said.
He said the role of the Indian Supreme Court and his involvement in aspects that influence the daily life of Indian population cannot be reduced.
“While very aware of this responsibility, the Judge of the Supreme Court of India was careful to maintain power separation.” Many interventions have changed the course of Indian history – both in protecting civil and political freedom that provide negative obligations to the country or direct the country to apply Socio-economic rights as affirmative obligations under the Constitution, “he said..” As a constitutional guard, he must rest where executive or legislative actions violate fundamental human rights.
Even in the context of power separation, examination schemes and balances through supervision results at a certain level of disruption by one branch into another function.
“Instead of imagining the branches that are separate from the government isolated and controlled by the walls between them, we must see their work effects in interactive interactive settings, interconnected and interconnected where the branches take into account and coordinate other actions , “he said.
Judge Chandrachud said the above court had used various methods in holding executive and legislative accountables, whether it was by attacking the law and mastering his helplessness, or by holding back to intervene in certain things from policy or through the deliberative approach to executive and legislatively aware of constitutional implications from the decision faced.
“The Supreme Court must act as a role as sentinel in Qui Vive and respond to constitutional conscience and this role that encourages it to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, ranging from increasing intolerance pandemics, features that we find throughout the world,” he said.