E-Paper
Despite 'vast powers' courts lack ability to ensure compliance: Madras HC
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court said that a court’s judgment has little meaning if it cannot be enforced.
The Madras High Court on Wednesday lamented that despite having “vast powers,” courts lack the ability to ensure compliance with their own orders.
Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court said that a court’s judgment has little meaning if it cannot be enforced. The judge also cited a previous judgement of the Kerala High Court to say that the judiciary, though it has vast constitutional powers, lacks its own machinery to implement its orders.
In a constitutional system founded on the rule of law, Justice Swaminathan said, the “State’s failure to carry out court directions would erode that foundation and could even lead to a constitutional stalemate.”
The judge made the remarks while criticising the Tamil Nadu government for failing to carry out the Court’s December 2 order permitting a group of petitioners to light the Karthigai Deepam at the Deepathoon, the ancient stone lamp pillar atop Thiruparankundram Hill in Dindigul district in Tamil Nadu.
The petitioners had approached the Court after the local district authorities refused to grant permission to light the lamp, citing law and order problems, given that the village in question has a predominantly Christian population.
After the Court allowed the petition, the district authorities, instead of making security arrangements for lighting of the lamp in compliance with the order, imposed prohibitory orders on residents. The district collector issued a notification under Section 163(1) of the BNSS, banning gatherings of five or more people and restricting entry of outsiders to the area for two days, citing the need to maintain law and order and public tranquility.
Swaminathan took a strong exception to the same and called it a “sad day for the Court and for the rule of law.”
The judge said the incident exposed the judiciary’s limited ability to ensure that its directions are carried out despite its constitutional authority. He then went on to summon the Dindigul District Collector and Superintendent of Police, and asked them to appear in person in Court on December 4 and explain why they had disregarded his earlier order.
“The Constitution fastens on all authorities a non-negotiable obligation to enforce orders of the court and the authorities who are bound to comply with the orders have no discretion whether or not to abide by,” the Court said.
Swaminathan said he had initially planned only to seek explanations from the Dindigul District Collector and Superintendent of Police, but after the Additional Advocate General argued that a volatile ground situation justified the Collector’s prohibitory order, he decided to issue a detailed ruling.
Rejecting “law and order” as a fig leaf for disobedience, the Court directed both officials to appear in person at 3.15 p.m. on December 4 to explain why they defied its order, after which, the Court said, it will determine whether contempt had been committed.
“Neither the District Collector, Dindigul nor the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul can take the frivolous plea that they were not parties (to the proceedings) and hence, the order of this Court will not bind them. I am sure that the learned Law Officers herein would enlighten them that even a stranger or a third party may be involved in contempt if he is found aiding or abetting or otherwise obstructing the enforcement of the court's order,” Swaminathan said.
