Judiciary – the new lawmaker

Last few weeks we have been witnessing the Supreme court judgements make headlines more than a few times, right from decriminalising homosexuality to Sabarimala verdict to the debate around aadhar. While the judgements on the right to privacy as a fundamental and curbing the abuse of Aadhar by private entities is a welcome. A move that many liberals will accept. It’s also worthy of the court to stand up against the center on the Rafale deal rather than brushing aside allegations over the rhetoric of national defence and confidentiality. It’s not so encouraging that the court was left to decide on subjects such as Section 377, when the government didn’t want the onus on it. Though convictions and sentences were rarely offered under it, the judgement could go a long way in making the community more socially acceptable. Ofcourse we understand the government’s dilemma, on one hand it should appeal to the conservatives and be pro religious and at the same time show the picture of the forward thinking government to the youth and the activists out there. Not that they are the most enthusiastic voters but it’s a numbers game afterall. But what we cannot afford over an insensitive government is an indecisive one. Its the people in parliament who have the privilege to make laws. With the privilege comes the responsibility to make them witnessing the changing lifestyles and relationship dynamics. And it was this way that has happened all over the world up even in last year’s referendum by German lawmakers on gay marriage. For the government to think that it will pass the buck on issues affecting vote bank politics is not worth a self pat.

And you would think that the government will stand for the small traders and the cracker makers who vote for them. But apparently its idea is to offer green crackers which are yet to be tested. While curbing pollution is yes a priority it’s disturbing that people and courts too always go for the easy targets, the ones without much lobby. Yes crackers cause pollution (just like global warming is real Trump). But is stopping a one day affair without any safeguard or a leeway to the industry and the workers with a hand and mouth existence the way to go? If at all you need to, phase it out; make sure the workers have alternate means. And not surprisingly policemen have come out saying that the two hour window will be tough to enforce. Seriously how many calls can the cops respond to in two hours?

But not all judgements come out without controversy, and nothing seems more controversial than the Sabarimala verdict as of now. What’s interesting on the verdict is that most women around me seem to be against it. Even the most thoughtful ones, like the sole dissenting woman judge. Their reason why interfere with something that you hold sacred or on the other hand dislike and it is not the only temple around. Well religion is not something that comes under the aegis of rationality and equality. People don’t hate Lord Ram for abandoning Sita but rather most see him as a perfect husband. So will the court try to change the epics and traditions to take away the thought of misogyny? Also worth noting is the fact that the Left government standing by its ideology saying we would enforce whatvever the court tells us, but the BJP and Congress seem confused on what side to take, especially after so vehemently supporting woman’s rights and being against triple talaq. But their regional units seem more to the point with their protest against the Left.

Nonetheless it is the prerogative of the government to be the torch-bearer of reforms. No one good can come from an indecisive government or an over arching judiciary or a mute citizen.