SC on collusion path

The Supreme Court rejecting the central government's plea to restrain High Courts and all other subordinate courts from entertaining petitions challenging demonetization is of questionable merit. With such cases coming up in many courts, it was the Centre's case that it would lead to multiple litigations which could be avoided if the apex court could deal with the issue to the exclusion of other courts.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Thakur and Justice A R Dave, however, took the view that the pleas seeking the intervention of courts reflected the ‘distress'. It was, however, pointed out by Attorney-General Mukul  Rohatgi that there has been no riot anywhere and people at large are supportive of the demonetization decision.

The Supreme Court's solution for the problem of multiple litigations was that all the petitions could be clubbed and taken up in one go by the Delhi High Court. Whether this would serve the ends of justice remains to be seen. For a start, the Centre would have to file transfer petitions. With the Attorney-General agreeing to do so, the stage is set for such a course.

The apex court's observation in the course of arguments that people standing in queues for long for withdrawal of money could turn riotous can hardly be described as a worthy comment considering that the long queues are getting shorter by the day and people have been enduring the ordeal hoping that the demonetization measure would bring them and the country larger good in the long run. The apex court would have done well to just direct the government to remedy the situation at the earliest and left it to the duly-elected government to deal with the issue on the highest priority and with due deliberation and application.

The sad reality is that for various reasons the judiciary and the government are on a collision course. The recent decision of the Modi government to reject 43 names of judges in States recommended by the collegium and the court's subsequent decision to ignore the government's decision and to repeat the names in a communication to the collegium reflects the confrontationist attitude that underlines relations between the two pillars of democracy.