Today, the front page of The Hindu features
an article
about the Supreme Court allowing the state of Madhya Pradesh to continue
with the construction of the Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar dam projects,
overriding a prior restraining order by the state High Court. About
halfway in, the article quotes the Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan:
At one stage the CJI asked Ms. Medha Patkar not to have a cynical
approach towards large irrigation projects as the projects will benefit
thousands of farmers and agriculturists
.
I find it difficult to imagine how a supreme court judge can sound so
oblivious to the horrendous track record of large irrigation projects
across the country, and the profound social and environmental damage
they have caused over the past fifty-odd years, and continue to cause
to this day. Where exactly does he see cause for optimism?
Justice Balakrishnan has, in recent times, expressed a few bizarre
opinions. Perhaps the most unpopular was his insistence that his office
was not subject to the provisions of the RTI act because the CJI is a
"constitutional authority" and not a "public servant". This position
drew widespread criticism, including gentle but
unequivocal
disagreement from eminent former SC jurist Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer;
and the Delhi High Court also held otherwise, in a remarkably
cogent ruling
last month.
(Strangely, today's paper also features a surreal
op-ed piece
by Mr. Iyer, who dreams of peace between India and Pakistan beginning
with a resolution that all Indians and Pakistanis believe in the
worship of all versions of god in deep devotion
and culminating
in the formation of an Indo-Pakistan federation with a joint parliament
and supreme court, a common defence force, and a single cricket team!
But the man is ninety-four years old, so perhaps he's entitled
to a few unsettling dreams. That defence does not, however, apply to
Justice Balakrishnan, who is a relatively sprightly sixty-five.)
Last week, the full bench of the Supreme Court
unanimously
rejected (for the fifth time) the Law Commission's suggestion that
four regional benches of the SC be set up in addition to the existing
bench in Delhi. This long-standing popular demand in the south would
benefit thousands of people who could not otherwise bear the cost of
approaching the highest court so far away from their home. The vigilant
Mr. Iyer has also
written
about the importance of judicial accessibility—If democracy
is for the people, the Supreme Court should function where the litigants
need it most, not where the British for their imperial reasons chose to
locate it
.
But the CJI had commented last month that we should maintain the
integrity of the Supreme Court
, and the twenty-six other judges
apparently agreed that it would negatively affect the country's
unitary character
.
Sometimes I wonder if there's an alternate universe in which India was
created in order to serve its Supreme Court.