New Delhi: Underwalking the role of the Supreme Court as a “counter-majority institution” to protect the socio-economic rights of the community, especially the minority, justice D Y Chandrachud said that criminal law should not be misused to silence and harass citizens.
The Supreme Court judge also confirmed the court intervention in the Covid vaccination policy.
He said the Prima Facie court found errors in central policy to discriminate and could not stand as “silent audience” in the humanitarian crisis.
He said the court adopted a “bound deliberative approach” and the policy was changed for improvement for citizens.
“Criminal law, including anti-terror laws, should not be misused to extinguish differences of opinion or for citizen harassment.
As I noted in the Arnab Goswami v.
The state of Maharashtra and others, our court must ensure they continue to remain the first row.
Defense against the seizure of citizen freedom, “said the Supreme Court Judge.” Deprivation of freedom even for one day too much.
We must always pay attention to deeper systemic implications of our decision, “said Justice Chandrachud while talking to a summer conference with Indo-as Legal ties.
Justice Chandrachud, who has passed various assessments to protect personal freedom and freedom, referring to orders by the APEX court to protect the rights of the poor and marginalized during the Covid pandemic and the way SC intervention caused a change in the central vaccination policy.
“The role of the Indian Supreme Court and its involvement in aspects that affect the daily life of the Indian population are homely.
While very aware of these responsibilities, the Indian Supreme Court judges are careful to maintain power separation.
Many of their interventions have changed the course of history India – both in protecting civil and political freedom that provides negative obligations to the state or directing the country to implement socio-economic rights as affirmative obligations under the Constitution, “he said”.
While some have called this intervention from the Supreme Court of India as’ Judicial Activism ‘Or’ janjir justice ‘, the court plays the role of a counter-majority institution, “he said, against the accusation.
“It is a court duty to protect the rights of socio-economic minorities.
As a constitutional guard, he must put the brakes where executive or legislative actions violate human rights,” said Justice Chandrachud.
“…
The court approach to question the reasons for government policy decisions helped In the basis of dialogue between the government and the court regarding the existence of policies in the constitutional framework, “he said in the case of a vaccine policy.
The next center revised its policy, responsible for getting 75% of the vaccine and managing them for free to people over the age of 18, while also limiting prices that can be charged 25% vaccine, he said.
Don’t use terror law for Quell Dissent: Supreme Court Judge
