In this lucidly written piece, Abhinav Chandrachud, perhaps nurtures undue expectation from Soli Sorabjee’s writ petition in the Supreme Court against terror.(W.P.[c]591 of 2008). His view that the outcome of this case will influence the fate of judicial activism and constitutional legitimacy in the coming decades, is perhaps a bit far-fetched. The comments our earlier post on this attracted show that the petition was a contradiction in terms, as the petitioner himself has been a critique of judicial activism in similar matters. Having read three recent books – one comparative, another empirical and the third theoretical – all pointing to the fallacy of the thesis that Supreme Court is seeking an activist role for itself, I am unable to share the author’s rather exaggerated view of likely intervention by the Court in this matter. The next date of hearing of ‘right against terror’ case in the Court is on Feb.2.
Right against terror
Further reading
The first part of this analysis delved into the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors v. Union of India, where it misread the International Rule of Law (IRoL) by focusing on...
Blurb: A petition was filed in the Supreme Court, seeking the suspension of military exports from India to Israel in light of the unfolding armed conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author raised and...
Blurb: In his recent rejoinder, Dalmia clarifies the “expressed an opinion” standard to better define when recusal may be appropriate. He addresses the four rebuttals that the author...
A fortnightly feature inspired by I-CONnect’s weekly “What’s New in Public Law” feature that addresses the lacuna of a one-stop-shop public law newsletter in the Indian legal...
A mass movement led by students has ushered in a new dawn in Bangladesh. What began as a claim for reform of the quota system transformed into a national movement to oust Bangladesh’s long-standing...
The most probable outcome to the Writ Petition would perhaps be that the Supreme Court would construe the right against terrorism a right flowing from and covered by the now wider ambit of Article 21. But really is it not already a right, is it not a right which we all have right from the untraceable birth of terrorism. The Court cannot not declare it as a right it is only logical for it to be declared as a right to terrorism. I’m surprised as to why we even need a Writ for something that is so clearly evident.
The object of terrorism is to take life and destroy property, do we really need the Court to explain to us that look here, we have a right against terror. Too Good then what, what next is the Court supposed to do. Give Directions, guidelines, etc. But really would it be going anywhere.
How can the Court define terrorism. How can it separate the terror in South Asia from the one in the Middle East and from the one in Africa and so on. Will the Court consider environmental terrorism, domestic terrorism. I don’t think so.
Terrorism is unwanted and uninvited to all of us. I think the interference of the Court is too.