Criminal, anti-terror laws should not be misused to quell dissent: Justice Chandrachud.
Manjil Das, INN/Chennai
Twitter-@SGiggle29 @Infodeaofficial
“Criminal law, including anti-terror laws, should not be abused for quelling dissent or for the harassing of citizens,” Supreme Court Justice D Y Chandrachud remarked.
“Criminal law, including anti-terror laws, should not be used to suppress dissent or harass citizens,” he said in a speech on the Supreme Court’s role in preserving basic rights in difficult times on Monday.
He stated it is the Supreme Court’s “responsibility to safeguard the rights of socio-economic minority” since it “plays the role of a counter-majoritarian institution.”
Against any attempt to deprive citizens of their liberty, the court must remain the first line of defence. “Our courts must guarantee that they remain the first line of defence in the fight against citizen loss of liberty. Even a single day of liberty deprivation is too much. He noted, “We must constantly be cognizant of the broader systemic issues of our judgments.”
Some may label the court’s participation as “judicial activism” or “judicial overreach,” according to Justice Chandrachud. He emphasised that the Supreme Court is a counter-majoritarian institution sworn to safeguard the rights of socioeconomic minority.
In response to the Supreme Court’s involvement during the epidemic, he stated that jail overcrowding was one among the concerns addressed. “While it is critical to decongest prisons because they are particularly prone to becoming viral hotspots, it is also critical to investigate why prisons are congested in the first place. He stated that “criminal law, especially anti-terror laws, should not be utilised to suppress dissent or harass citizens.”
“As I stated in Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, ‘our courts must guarantee that they remain the first line of defence against citizen loss of liberty.’ Even a single day of liberty deprivation is too much. He stated, “We must constantly be cognizant of the larger systemic consequences of our actions.”
While the “Judges of the Supreme Court of India are cautious to maintain the separation of powers… the mechanism of checks and balances via supervision results in a certain degree of intrusion by one branch into the operation of the other,” he added.
“Instead of picturing different departments of government separated and compartmentalised by walls between them, we should perceive their working in a complex interactive, interdependent, and interconnected context where the branches take account of, and coordinate with, the activities of the other,” he added.
“Instead of picturing different departments of government separated and compartmentalised by walls between them, we should perceive their working in a complex interactive, interdependent, and interconnected context where the branches take account of, and coordinate with, the activities of the other,” he added.
“Indian courts have been doing virtual sessions for the last year to guarantee that access to justice is not hampered even during times of crisis,” he said.