The Union government had appointed a high level committee comprising revenue secretary; deputy governor, RBI; Directors, IB, CBI, (financial intelligence unit) and ED; chairman, CBDT and DGs, Narcotics Control Bureau and Revenue Intelligence. The Supreme Court added three more members to it-two former judges and Director, RAW-and rechristened it as SIT. Even now the investigation will be done by the police, but what is unprecedented is that the SIT will report to a former judge. Under the Cr. Pc., the court cannot take over investigation though it can appoint any one to investigate impartially to its satisfaction.
In another case, Nandini Sundar- vs- Chhattisgarh, the apex court declared the appointment of special police officers (SPO)
…show more content…
So by principle judiciary ratifying the legislature is against the principle of democracy. But arriving any such conclusion is not an easy task. There are many a loopholes in such straight forward criticism. Suppose the legislature makes the law which affects the liberty of people and which is a gross violation of human rights. In this case does the judiciary remain silent and follow the rule of law principle even if the law is inhumane? This is a question which has far reaching significance. There is no absolute solution for this. To analyze this one needs to reinterpret the word democracy itself.
In America, judges are chosen on ideological grounds by the presidents who are grilled by the Senate live on television. Thus, people know the ideological commitments of the person going to be appointed judge of the Supreme Court. Still, they tenaciously stick to the constitution. While in India, judges are apolitical and they have to interpret laws strictly within the mandate of the constitution. In the black money order, the court has clearly overstepped on the ground of protecting the fundamental right to equality (Article 14) and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). Law’s hands are long and some kind of amorphous connection can always be established with these rights to justify judicial intervention. Judicial activism earned a human face in India by liberalizing access to justice and giving relief to disadvantaged groups and the have-nots under the