While your concern is legitimate,let me clarify on the two instances quoted by you-
1. It is an old problem and yet defied solution. It is not the first time as well. Recall Satluj-Yamuna canal dispute between Haryana and Punjab. It has been delibrated by the Supreme Court and its directions are not accepted by Punjab.Today the Politicians are fighting election in Punjab on the same issue and have vowed not to give a drop of water to Haryana Meanwhile land in Haryana has been acquired by the State Govt. and Canal dug up in anticipation of water. But there is no water nor the land available to the farmer.
2. Jallikatu- it is certainly an over-reach and best should have given directions to the State Govt. to prevent cruelty,if any rather than banning it. Surely you know that Indians have been living closest to the animals- sharing the same roof and joys and sorrows togather in rural India. Bulls have been venerated as a symbol of fertility. They are fed and taken care of by the whole community. I need not go into bullocks and bulls- as the one is a farm animal for agriculture and transport but the bull is to continue the progeny. Now coming to the cruelty part- is castarting a bull to use as a domestic animal no cruelty. Is killing of any animal not cruelty? Then why does not peta fight for killing the animals.They kill millions of birds and animals ,first by feeding them wrong feed and when diseased kill them. This is what perhaps PETA advocates.
If on certain festivals like New year day they have festivals like bullock cart races or camel racing you start calling them cruelty. Then Why not stop horse racing in the cities? If bulls disappear, the local breeds will gradually disappear and we will have only jersy cows through artificial insemination.
Definace by people happens when they feel the directions are not unjustified.
Other cases of over-reach are national anthem in cinema and control of sports bodies like BCCI.
judiciary has developed PIL legislation only during the last 30 years. But entertaining PILs without enough supporting data and justification may lead to such situations. They should insist that executive decisions should be taken only by the Govt.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> on behalf of Venkatraman Ns <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 8:28 PM
Subject: [IAC#RG] DEFIANCE OF JUDICIARY WILL LEAD TO ANARCHY
India Against Corruption
DEFIANCE OF JUDICIARY WILL LEAD TO ANARCHY
Supreme court ordered Karnataka government to release certain quantity of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu, which was defied by Karnataka government. Supreme court has earlier ordered that Jallikattu should not be conducted in Tamil Nadu and the case to review the order is still pending. However, in several places in Tamil Nadu , Jallikattu has been conducted defying the supreme Court order.
There have also been similar other instances of defiance of supreme Court order in the past in variety of ways.
Possibly, the main reason for such defiance of judiciary is that it does not anymore command the type of respect that it did earlier.
With supreme court judges refusing to have transparency in the appointment of judges , quite a number of judges having been caught on corruption charges or accused of being corrupt, some former judges like Katju questioning the Supreme Court orders, some of the controversial observations of the judges inside and outside the court premises, some judges sharing platform with those facing corruption and criminal charges , judiciary seems to be rapidly losing it's pivotal position and lofty image that it once enjoyed.
In such circumstances, perspective seem to be developing among section of people that the order of judiciary need not be considered sacroscent and can be defied if mass protest can be organized against the order.
So far, those who defy the court orders by threatening to disrupt law and order have got away and courts give an appearance of being helpless in tackling such defiance.
This is a very unhealthy situation and can lead to anarchy.
With the credibility of the politicians and bureaucrats being so low, people seem to think that in the present conditions, judiciary should rise up to the occasion and punish the culprits and ensure fair play. It is increasingly becoming doubtful whether judiciary is now cut out to play such role of remaining as a watch dog and conscience keeper of society.
In any case, even if some damage has been done to the reputation of judiciary in recent times, the judiciary's verdict should be accepted unquestioningly by everyone to prevent a scenario of free for all.
Nandini Voice For The Deprived
About Nandini. Nandini Voice For The Deprived has the following objectives and goals. To highlight the problems of downtrodden and deprived people and support their ...