It said that these governments are extremely inadequate in the implementation of the welfare schemes meant for have-nots, and raise the boggy of judicial activism if courts intervenes and issues directions.
“In last 63 years, Parliament and State Legislatures have enacted several laws for achieving the goals set out in the preamble (Of the constitution) but their implementation has been extremely inadequate and tardy and benefit of welfare measures enshrined in those legislations has not reached millions of poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged sections of the society and the efforts to bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots have not yield the desired result.”
The apex court bench of Justice G.S.Singhvi and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly said this in their judgment pronounced on Monday dismissing an appeal by Delhi Jal Board challenging the Delhi High Court order directing it to deposit Rs.79,000/- with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in addition to Rs.1.71 lacs already paid to the family of deceased one Rajan who was sewage cleaning worker.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Singhvi said political arm of the State raises the boggy of judicial activism when courts intervene and issue direction for the compliance of welfare laws.
“The most unfortunate part of the scenario” is that whenever judiciary issues direction for the implementation of the welfare statute so that the “right to equality, life and liberty no longer remains illusory for those who suffer from the handicaps of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance” the boggy of judicial activism and judicial over-reach is raised.
“…a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial activism or judicial overreach and the orders issued for benefit of the weaker sections of the society are invariably subjected to challenge in the higher Courts”, the judgment said.
“In large number of cases, the sole object of this litigative exercise is to tire out those who genuinely espouse the cause of the weak and poor,” it pointed out.
Upholding the Delhi High Court verdict in the instant case, the judgment said, “What the High Court has done by entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions for protection of the persons employed to do work relating to sewage operations is part of its obligation to do justice to the disadvantaged and poor sections of the society.”