A Judge, one too many

To,

The Editor,

The Indian Express.

Sir,

Apropos Upendra Baxi’s ‘Just Governance’ (I.E., June 10, 2014). While arguing for reversal of Supreme Court judgement on Section 377 of IPC the author states “Apart from strong independent arguments supporting this change, a reversal is now further mandated by three judge bench decision recognizing the constitutional rights of the third sex.” The SC judgement dated 15.04.2014 in transgender case was pronounced by two judges namely Js. K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri and not three judges as stated by the author. Therefore it stands on the same footing as the 377 judgement which was also pronounced by two judges. The transgender judgement does not mandate any reversal in 377 judgement except on the merits of the curative petition itself. Most curative petitions get dismissed in the chambers. But in the 377 case the media and public pressure has at least ensured an open court hearing.

Prof. Baxi also needs to honestly examine if any “public interest litigation” which he insists on calling “social action litigation” has ever benefitted any poor person in India. The judgements in PILs only propound lofty ideals. The ground reality is that justice is never served to the poor through the aegis of PILs and most judgements benefitting the poor stay unimplemented. In fact most PILs that are filed have nothing to do with the poor and many even adversely affect the poor.

Shobha Aggarwal

Advocate and author of a Citizen’s Report titled “The Public Interest Litigation Hoax – Truth Before the Nation”