General understanding is that the judiciary should give verdict on the basis of laws enshrined in the Constitution and enacted by parliament from time to time. However, in recent years, Supreme court has no hesitation in entertaining cases that should be left to the administration to tackle as it involves no interpretation of law.
Further, in awarding the verdicts on several matters of public interest , Supreme Court judges appear to be guided by their own personal perspectives and do not take into consideration the traditional practices and public sentiments.
The net result is that several directives of the Supreme Court are not really observed in practice. Such situation is happening only because Supreme Court judges are not taking into consideration the practical scenario and the feasibility of implementing the verdict, given the public sentiments.
For example, the Supreme Court verdict on allowing women of all ages to enter Sabarimala temple cannot be implemented in view of the very strong opposition from devotees. Similarly, Supreme Court verdict that fire crackers should be burst only for two hours on Deepavali day is being defied by the people, as it is now seen that even a few days before Deepavali in Tamil Nadu crackers are being burst throughout the day.
It is high time that supreme Court judges should take a re look at their approach and appreciate the importance of taking holistic view on matters while delivering judgements, giving due weightage to public perspectives particularly on matters that involve no interpretation of law.
Nandini Voice For The Deprived