If courts of law were to continue with the reputation of being the dispensers of justice, the ruling of the Supreme Court of India in Government of NCT of Delhi vs Union of India… must be kept above the percept of victory and defeat. What has been pronounced is justice for both the parties whose joint discretionary domain contains the will power to reach out to public with the benefits of a public welfare government which reflects the ultimate justice expected of the lawmakers and decision makers.
Where was the need for spending two years of the given five-year tenure of a popular government in waiting for a decision, had the legislators and the administrators adhered to the theory of checks and balances that ensures against wills becoming sanctions. If not the first, the first of its kind is it that the lawmakers in their fit of undue enthusiasm and the administrators with their overpowering discretions reached a stalemate –one playing to the galleries and the other playing up to the constitutional provisions. And both oblivious of, what the court called, the purpose of the popular will.
Should the dénouement of a two-year long legal battle at the cost of the exchequer, be inclusive of harsh sermons to the office of the Lt Governor against becoming obstructionist interfering with the states, is a question that shows the efficiency of the legal experts within the government departments in the light of the delay in getting the ruling and also the denial of the right to the Lt Governor with which the officer was content enough till the checkmate came. What made this youthful force of AAP, which formed government on the strength of a never-before popular vote, so acrimonious is the overdose of unfriendliness with rivals and also the rivals’ rivals, a trait that is known only for cornering parties and people in politics wherein both friendship and hostility is transient.
The strictures made by the court against the office of the Lt Governor are serious, and more so, they seem to have been extracted for want of proper legal guidance to the august office. While the strictures go to say that complacent mill had been working overtime, the sit-in staged by the Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a public building had hardly any purpose other than that of appealing to the popular taste, if he relied on judiciary. Interestingly, the ‘boss’ had been facing identity crisis while the existence of such term is unlikely in a democratic setup wherein the prime minister is pleased designate himself as the first servant. The bell tolls for both the parties -the ones who not only declare themselves anarchists but also act like one at times and the administrators who are charged with ‘acting in a mechanical’ manner and stalling the decisions of the Delhi cabinet. The bell tolls for one, but justice for both
