The court is not running the nation: 'Sachin Tendulkar' of Supreme Court

by Raghul Sudheesh Justice Arijit Pasayat retired from the Supreme Court in 2009 after delivering over 2,500 reported judgements in eight years, earning him the sobriquet “The Sachin Tendulkar of the Supreme Court.” Bar and Bench Associate Editor, Raghul Sudheesh spoke to Justice Pasayat who is the current chairman of the  Competition Appellate Tribunal. Here is an excerpt. You can read the full interview at Bar and Bench. Raghul Sudheesh: Judges are often asked to provide solutions to fairly complex disputes. What was your approach towards such disputes? Any advice for current judges? Justice Arijit Pasayat: I am a devotee of Lord Ganapati. I used to say that in the Mahabharat, Vyas Muni was dictating while Lord Ganesh would write it all down. In my case, it is the reverse: It is Lord Ganesh who dictates while I write it down. People may think that this is not a very serious way of writing judgments but I have always felt this way. The approach should never be that when we are in the High Court, the Supreme Court is always there; whether we decide rightly or wrongly, it does not matter. That is a very wrong way of thinking because ultimately, for approximately 97% of the country’s people, even a Munsiff is the Supreme Court in the sense that the majority of the people cannot afford to go to higher courts given the cost and time involved.  Can you elaborate on some of the important judgments delivered by you?  Each judgment was important for me. There were a few cases which I felt had some significance in the ultimate analysis of law. One related to the destruction of public property, another related to anti-ragging laws; there was one case dealing with college elections and conducting them in a more dignified manner. I was amazed at the amount of money that was spent on college elections and the violence in campuses during elections. I felt this was not a very healthy trend for the student community. Ragging has become a nuisance. Even though we have such stringent laws, ragging still takes place and many young students have lost their lives because of this menace. [caption id=“attachment_169729” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Justice Arijit Pasayat in this photograph. Image from Bar and Bench”]  [/caption] About the fast tracking of Gujarat riots case, it was a case where apart from the fact that the credibility of the criminal justice system was under scrutiny, there was a need to give equal  importance to the protection of witnesses, a subject which I highlighted in that case and in subsequent cases. Today, the number of convictions is pathetically low. This is not because there is a deficiency in the criminal justice delivery system; rather it ultimately depends upon the credibility of the witness and whether he is deposing fairly, fearlessly and is telling the truth. From experience, I have seen that the witnesses, by and large, resile from the statements made during investigation. That is the reason for it, either they were telling the truth then or they are telling the truth in court. In fact, I made a very detailed study of the witness protection system and had indicated in my judgment that there should be some system of giving protection to the witness so that he can fearlessly depose in court. You have come down heavily on the High Courts for over reaching the powers granted by Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). Do you think that this Section is particularly open to abuse? As a matter of fact, there is nothing wrong in our statutes. The power under Section 482 is to be exercised within some legitimate boundaries. Mostly Section 482 cases have time-consuming processes involved and seem to be a way for people to delay the proceedings. The true scope and ambit of Section 482 should be kept in view while dealing with any application under Section 482. Right from Bhajan Lal’s case, we have tried to find out where and when Section 482 is to be used. The power granted by Section 482 should not be exercised very sparingly nor should it be used very casually; there has to be a balance. That is what I have said. As one of the judges who was on the Bench that stayed the implementation of the OBC quota in the various IIMs and IITs, do you believe that the reservation policy in our country has served its purpose?  Though I had initially in the OBC quote case stayed the reservation system but ultimately the decision rested on whether the reservation itself was constitutionally valid per se. Now whether reservation is desirable or not desirable, is a political question. But when it comes to the court, we have to see whether the provision relating to the reservation is constitutionally valid or not. That is how we decided the matter. After you completed your tenure in the Supreme Court, you were appointed the Chairman of the Competition Appellate Tribunal. How has that experience been?  Competition law is a very important branch of law. It will be the “in” law in times to come because the entire commercial scenario of the country would depend upon proper implementation of this law. Of course, now we are at the infancy stage but with time its importance will grow. In the light of recent corporate scandals, do you think that we need to have a Special Court or Tribunal for deciding such cases? The present Chief Justice of India has actually been insisting that you should have more number of Benches dealing with commercial matters.  Commercial and revenue laws form a significant part of the economic growth and stability of the country. So, if there is uncertainty, if there is delay then it becomes counter-productive. In that sense, you should have more number of Benches dealing with commercial and revenue issues so that they can be decided expeditiously. Are you in favour of the Bill which plans to establish commercial Benches in the High Courts? I think you can designate a Bench to deal with commercial and revenue cases, so there is no necessity as such, for having any special Bench. What I used to do as Chief Justice is to find out which judge is familiar with which branch of law and I used to assign matters accordingly. In the last few years, the Supreme Court has become very pro-active. Do you think that this is an indication that the government machinery has failed and it is the Court who is now running the nation?  No, the court is not running the nation. It is incorrect to say that in cases where there is deficiency in the functioning of the Executive, the courts correct it. Courts do not, in that sense, run the country.  In one or two cases, when we have done something, it doesn’t mean that the country has failed. The government’s failure is a political issue. The Court decides a particular case on the facts of that case. How can that lead to the impression of failure of government? I don’t subscribe to that view.  Firstpost.com regularly features articles from Bar And Bench. You can read the full interview here.