DailyPost 1795
THE COURT GAME
Governance in any democratic country or even in any province, has a fair idea of which of its decisions would reach the doorsteps of the judiciary. The law enforcement and investigative agencies given their immense expertise and experience also have reasonably good idea as to which case will starting knocking the doors of justice, when and at what pace. What would be the repercussions of an arrest? The political parties also know how to plan their protests and also play the strategic political game in a manner that they remain on the right side of the law and yet are able to achieve their political objectives. More often than not it reaches the courts. Given the thought process of the democratic governments, they certainly factor in the judicial element into their decisions.
Whether that should be factored in, can be a matter of debate. In the technical sense it should not be factored in. The democratic decision making should be so robust that decisions don’t reach the court. If it does it should be few and far between. At times the decisions do not end up for judicial scrutiny but its enforcement does. At times the fairness in implementation or execution, becomes a matter of grave concern and rightly so, reaches the court. Not taking responsibility has been at times, the cause for this predicament, on the other side the disinterest in taking a tough decision often leads to ending up in the court game. Even to prove your worth in politics, it needs to go through the courts.
The Gunnar Myrdal concept of the practicing Soft State has been somewhere at its kernel. There are also times that once a crime investigation or any issue is messed up, it reaches the courts and stays there for weeks, months and years together. It’s not only the courts, the doors of different Commissions created as per law for fair and transparent implementation of the statute or to stop abuse, also become a port of call. Is it not high time, the responsibility, ownership and accountability of the executive becomes a matter of live debates. It has to decided once and for all, that they are delivery boys of democracy and they ought to deliver.
If all were to be hunky dory with the executive decision making and its enforcement, what percentage of the court game could have been avoided. Individuals’ issues would erupt and that would be decided upon by the courts, but the Govt. landing up in the dock is not the right way to go. Once the court game starts, the govts need to keep reporting its actions and giving justification for it. The nature of protests also at times needs to be decided by courts. Sometimes it is even treated as a delay tactics tool. In the same breath it is used to tire out the opponent. Mostly, the opponent does not have the tenacity of that of a govt. Courts should not be used deliberately as another port of call.
SELF CREATED ISSUES FOR INTERESTS UNKNOWN, ARE MADE TO END UP IN THE COURT GAME.
Sanjay Sahay