Q.3) The Supreme Court has suspended the sale of firecrackers in Delhi and NCR. Do you think it is worthwhile for the Supreme Court to personally invest time and monitor such activities, considering that a specialised forum i.e., National Green Tribunal has been created for addressing environmental concerns? Given arguments in support of your answer.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sid Sonawane @legendarysonsid
October 15, 2017 at 2:57 pm
Avinash Mishra @avinash-mishra
October 15, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Amit Bhardwaj @amit-bhardwaj1
October 20, 2017 at 9:32 pm
1. Did you mean to write ‘executive and legislature’ or ‘executive and judiciary’?
2. To claim it shall undermine SC authority if an ‘experimental’ judgment is not complied with is a bit far-fetched.
3. Don’t use words like ‘partisan’ when you are writing about agencies like SC rather say it differently like “SC could have practiced more caution by involving all stakeholders’
4. What are the issues it raises?
5. That’s the root of the question. Why should SC get involved and ask NGT to take up matter when NGT is an specialized agencies which can take up suo moto cognisance of the matter.
Got the point?
Shefali garg @shefaligarg014
October 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
October 15, 2017 at 5:25 pm
The Supreme Court suspended the sale of firecrackers in Delhi and NCR till November 1, 2017. It is in order to keep a check on the air pollution caused by bursting of fire crackers. But it can be seen as another example of how the judiciary is transgressing into the boundaries of the executive and legislative limbs of the State.
1) The Government-funded organisations operating, are already engaged in testing air quality on a regular basis and suggesting methods to contain the same. In this case is it not appropriate for the apex court to step in the shoes of the executive and take matters in their hands
2) National Green Tribunal was set up under National Green Tribunal Act,2010 with an aim to provide protection to environment, conservation of forests and other natural resources along with enforcement of legal rights for environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property. So SC need not personally invest time and monitor such activities.
3) Also pollution being generated from firecrackers the concern of Delhi NCR alone. So the judiciary oversteps the powers given to it, and interfering with the proper functioning of the legislative or executive organs of government. This is thus a judicial overreach as the cause not comes in the scope of Art 142
4) SC already appointed one committee to submit a report on same matter on or before December 31, 2017. The SC did not wait for the report and to take steps and act appropriately after the report is tabled.
The need of the hour is that the judiciary must introspect on the best use of the judicial time on their hands. Thus SC should restrain itself to the boundaries of Art 142 and ensure that justice is being done as envisaged under the Constitution.
Narayana Sarma @narayanacbe
October 15, 2017 at 8:24 pm
varnit sharma @varnit-sharma
October 15, 2017 at 9:47 pm
In recent some years,through the instrument of PIL,supremecourt has extended its jurisdiction to the various matters related to public concerns include health,environment,human rights and various other matters.However,along with this the line of distinction between judicial activism and judicial overreach has also been observed.It has appeared recently in many cases including judgement on national anthem,ban on liquor and most recently,in the decision of court regarding banning of fire crackers.Recent ban by supreme court on fire crarckers has once again bought the discussion on judicial overreach in light.
On September 9,supreme court has suspended the sale of fire crackers in Delhi and NCR.Though,the motive behind the decision was to study the effect of firecrackers on air pollution,but the relevance of decision itself was questioned on two grounds.Firstly,there are many special forums like NGT,which deals with the environment related concerns.In this respect,the recent decision of court shows the unnecessary intervention of judiciary in legislative domain.It is against federal principle.Secondly,The recent decision would hardly affect the workers engaged in firecrackers industry.With considering the intended consequences,the recent decision has put question mark on the role of judiciary.
Though,guarding the rights of the people is the constitutional duty of judiciary and judicial activism is the culmination of proactive approach on this regard,It must maintain a fine balance between judicial activism and judicial overreach to maintain the federal principles.Government through legislation along with active participation of people would only help to decrease the air pollution through firecrackers.
Khemchand Gujjar @khemchand-gujjar
October 16, 2017 at 8:50 am
Amit Bhardwaj @amit-bhardwaj1
October 20, 2017 at 9:08 pm
@khemchand-gujjar : Hello there,
Khemchand you have not answered the question at all. The question was if SC should enter into arenas for which specialised agencies like NGT exist. Instead you have tried to point out what the fallout of the SC judgement may be.
Now if you had understood this question correctly, this is how you could have developed your answer:
The Supreme Court’s recent judgement to ban sale of firecrackers in Delhi-NCR region has opened Pandora’s box with many regarding it as an act of overzealous SC to step into the domain of specialised agencies like NGT. [Now this one sentence can sum up all you have said in first two paras of your answer.]
If you want to support SC you can develop your idea that SC has always been the torchbearer in enabling issues and that it has more credibility and authority that is needed for issues like environment.
If you want to counter it you can say that specialised agencies have been constituted and manned accordingly to address the particular issues requiring expert handling and therefore SC should refrain from such areas. OK?
Utkarsh Saxena @utkarshsaxena
October 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm