Chief Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain along with a senior Appellate Division judge and five High Court Division judges on Saturday urged their colleagues to issue more rulings suo motu and promote the Public Interest Litigation writ petitions to ensure justice to disadvantaged people, women and children.
They raised the issue at a discussion on ‘Standing in Public Interest Litigation (PIL): An Outline’, where judges of the High Court Division were also present. The judges urged their colleagues to be careful while passing orders on PIL writ petitions as some PIL writ petitions were also filed for personal gains. They put emphasis on verifying newspaper reports before issuing suo motu rulings.
Many landmark verdicts have been delivered by the High Court Division and the Appellate Division in PIL writ petitions like the verdict in which fatwa, other than by competent Islamic scholars, was declared as illegal. The PIL writ petition by Mohiuddin Farooque Versus Bangladesh’s case in 1996 was a landmark decision on environment protection.
We shall not be wrong if we say that all writ petitions are public interest petitions. Remedies in writ petitions are to do justice against the abuse of power by the government and the public authority. Even in normal writ petitions remedies are not easily obtained. The view often taken is that the power of the court is discretionary.
The fundamental rights guaranteed are not so guaranteed for the delay in disposing of the writ matters.
There is also not due consideration of the fact that the lower judiciary is directly controlled by the law ministry. As such the lower judiciary is not as independent as it should be. The new rules framed by the law ministry were accepted by the Supreme Court despite a long refusal to do so. The Supreme Court can do a lot to boost up their courage.
There is also not due consideration of the fact that the lower judiciary is directly controlled by the law ministry. As such the lower judiciary is not as independent as it should be. The new rules framed by the law ministry were accepted by the Supreme Court despite a long refusal to do so. The Supreme Court can do a lot to boost up their courage.
We welcome the call of the Chief Justice to invite more public interest writs. This should also mean an assurance by the Supreme Court that it will entertain with equal importance to the PIL so-called and other writ petitions not so-called, but give remedies without delay. That does not always happen.
More judges or more courage is not the whole answer. We shall emphasize the need of competent judges who have the ability to grasp the issues quickly and decide the matter without allowing them to waste the court’s valuable time. It has become too easy for inexperienced lawyers to appear in the Supreme Court with cases difficult for them to argue.
It is vital that the justice system must be built by the judges and lawyers together. And for this the separation of powers as envisaged in the Constitution must be upheld jealously by judges. Lawyers are unfortunately divided politically.
The government also tells us about the rule of law and fair justice. But abuse of law and justice was never so easy and so widespread as it is now.
The independence of the judiciary is a constitutional guarantee yet we know the difficulties faced by a free or independent judiciary. The Supreme Court is the last hope for making judicial independence meaningful to the general public.
The greatest injustices are happening in the criminal justice system mainly because police cases have become part of politics. The courts must discourage political cases to reduce unnecessary clogging of the courts.
It is important that the Chief Justice is also aware of the abuse of jurisdiction of PILs. The free public litigation practice has become a good business for some and complaints are forthcoming that rich parties are threatened with PILs where no such public interest is affected.
We at the same time must offer our deep appreciation to those who take up PIL for the poor and disadvantaged with no motive for personal gain. There are NGOs who get foreign aid for their service in the protection of human rights.
But these NGOs will not fight for human rights outside the court for protection of human rights before such rights are violated. They will not be found defending the independence of the judiciary. Such contradictions do not uphold the cause of human rights.
We all have to remember that the judiciary is civilisation and the judges are protectors of civilised life in a country.
