Judges Cannot Sit in Ivory Towers Blindfolded to the Miseries of Indian Citizens: Dushyant Dave Criticizes SC Response to Migrant Issue

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

On Saturday, Senior Advocate and President of Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave said

“The Supreme Court has failed the citizens of the country. It has failed in safeguarding the Constitutional Rights of the citizens.” He stated that “Judges cannot sit in ivory towers blindfolded to the miseries of Indian citizens.” Further, he condemned the Supreme Court’s response to migrant’s crisis.

A bench constituting Justices L Nageswara Rao, S K Kaul and B R Gavai observed that:-

“The Court couldn’t monitor the situation at hand. The State Government should take action.”

L Nageswara Rao, who led the bench said, “How can we stop them from walking? A Court can’t track who is walking and who is not walking?”

In response to the Supreme Court’s response on migrant issue Senior Advocate, Jaideep Gupta said:

“The migrants walk home is not a simple irresponsible act of a citizen. It’s a moment of existential crises for them. The Supreme Court could have done a lot. The walking migrants need you.”

Gupta also said that the Supreme Court must create checks and balances. Yet the Court refused to address the issue. Dave expressed disappointment on this statement given by the Apex Court.

He said “If the judges had seen their grandchild walking on the road and see a car rushing towards them. Would they have tried to save the child? Every citizen is a grandchild of the Supreme Court.” Moreover, he added, “I do not know what prevents Judges from acting as per constitutional oath.”

He mentioned the Constitutional framers wanted Judiciary to monitor the Executive actions. Article 32 of the Constitution enables a citizen to move to the Supreme Court. It’s described as “The soul of the Constitution” by B R Ambedkar.

Criticism by Sr Adv Dave upon the SC’s Response

Dave stated that when the Executive is failing in its duties, the Judiciary has to take action. The Supreme Court must enforce the Fundamental Rights. It is not an emergency. Hence, it cannot be suspended. The Judiciary has failed to do the same.

He said that even the excellent judges within the Judiciary remained silent. “Who is stopping the judges from taking up matters suo moto? Why are they remaining silent?”

Furthermore, he mentioned the misery caused to people due to demonetization. The Supreme Court let down the citizens at the time of demonetization too. He claimed that the public opinion of people about Judiciary is negative. People do not think very well of Judiciary, which does not work in favour of the nation. The Judiciary should protect its citizens moreover take actions. He highlighted, the Court should pay attention to ordinary cases of individuals too.

Dave finally said that if the Judiciary is not taking action, we cannot watch and do nothing. The bar should unite and put pressure on the Judges to take action.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -