NEW DELHI: Amid rising concern over judicial activism and overreach in India, the Supreme Court has said judiciary doesn’t have a remedy for all ills confronting the country and policy matters are better left to the government.
A bench of Chief Justice of India TS Thakur and j ustice DY Chandrachud -- which dismissed a petition seeking direction to government for moral education in schools – said courts didn’t have competence to deal with it.
“It is unrealistic for the court to assume that it can provide solutions to vexed issues which involve drawing balances between conflicting dimensions that travel beyond the legal plane. Courts are concerned with issues of constitutionality and legality,” the bench said.
“The (writ) jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is not a panacea for all ills but a remedy for the violation of fundamental rights,” it said, adding: “Every good that is perceived to be in the interest of society cannot be mandated by the court. Nor is the judicial process an answer to every social ill which a public interest petitioner perceives.”
The verdict may be perceived as a step towards course correction as the higher judiciary, particularly the SC, has often been accused of encroaching upon the spheres reserved for the legislature and the executive. “While there can be no dispute about the need of providing value based education, what form this should take and the manner in which values should be inculcated ought not to be ordained by the court,” the bench said.
{{/usCountry}}The verdict may be perceived as a step towards course correction as the higher judiciary, particularly the SC, has often been accused of encroaching upon the spheres reserved for the legislature and the executive. “While there can be no dispute about the need of providing value based education, what form this should take and the manner in which values should be inculcated ought not to be ordained by the court,” the bench said.
{{/usCountry}}Noting that morality was just one element in the composition of values that a just society must pursue, the court said there was a need to promote acceptance of plurality and diversity of ideas, images and faiths which faced global threats.