MUJEEB ANDRABI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 22.05.2013, we have issued comprehensive direction in the instant PIL and in purported compliance of those directions, Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation have filed compliance report on 26.06.2013 supported by an Affidavit. In last part of para 8 of the so called compliance report, some disparaging remarks were made by the deponent, Dr. G.N.Qasba, Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation. We took a strong exception to the averment made in para 8, which impinges upon the authorities of the Court to issue interim order. However, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation instantaneously tendered unconditional apologies on behalf of the Commissioner and requested for some time to file the affidavit of the Commissioner in that regard. He also pleaded that the Commissioner shall be personally present to tender apologies.

(2.) AN effort was then made to file an affidavit. However, the affidavit was found against the provisions of law as is evident from the detailed order dated 28.06.2013. The aforesaid affidavit was rejected, granting liberty to the Commissioner to file fresh affidavit in accordance with the provisions of law.

(3.) IN S. P. Gupta v. Union of India and anr, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87 a Constitutional Bench of Hon 'ble the Supreme Court has talked about the concept of independence of the judiciary. According to the views expressed in para 27, the concept of independence of the judiciary is a noble concept which inspires the constitutional scheme and constitutes the foundation on which rests the edifice of our democratic polity. If there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution it is the principle of the rule of law and under the Constitution. It is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective. It is to aid the judiciary in this task that the power of judicial review has been conferred upon the judiciary and it is by exercising this power which constitutes one of the most potent weapons in armory of the law, that the judiciary seeks to protect the citizens against violation of their constitutional or legal rights or misuse or abuse of power by the State or its officers. The judiciary stands between the citizen and the State as a bulwark against executive excesses and misuse or abuse of power by the executive and therefore it is absolutely essential that the judiciary must be free from executive pressure or influence and this has been secured by the Constitution-makers by making elaborate provisions in Constitution to which detailed reference has been made in the case of Union of India v. Sankalchand Himmat Lal Seth [1977 (4) SCC 193]. But it is necessary to remind ourselves that the concept of independence of the judiciary is not limited only to independence from executive pressure or influence but it is a much wider concept which takes within its sweep independence from many other pressures and prejudices. It has many dimensions, namely, fearlessness of other power centres, economic or political, and freedom from prejudices acquired and nourished by the class to which the Judges belong. Judges should be of stern stuff and tough fibre, unbending before power, economic or political, and they must uphold the core principle of the rule of law which says, "Be you ever so high, the law is above you. " This is the principle of independence of the judiciary which is vital for the establishment of real participatory democracy, maintenance of the rule of law as a dynamic concept and delivery of social justice to the vulnerable sections of the community. It is this principle of independence of the judiciary which we must keep in mind while interpreting the relevant provisions of the Constitution.