New Delhi/Bengaluru: Justice R F Nariman slammed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Friday and said that the Government cannot ‘play with’ Supreme Court judgments.
“Please read our dissenting judgment in Sabarimala. Our judgments are not to be played with. Tell your government that our judgments stand,” Justice Nariman told the SG. The bench, also comprising Justice Ravindra Bhat was hearing the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to Congress leader DK Shivakumar.
Right in the beginning, the bench expressed its disinclination to entertain the petition of the ED. Justice Nariman also noted that the ED had copy-pasted from their petition against the bail granted to P Chidambaram in INX Media case. The petition against Shivakumar referred to DKShi, a former legislator of Karnataka as former Home Minister (which Chidambaram was).
Justice Nariman, who took note of the error said, “This is no way to treat citizens.”The Solicitor General kept urging the bench to not dismiss the matter. but Justice Nariman asked the SG to apprise the officials of Centre about the dissenting judgment in Sabarimala review, where he stated that the compliance of judgments of the Supreme Court is mandatory.The observations in Sabarimala review case were made in the context of the violent agitation led by certain groups to block the entry of women in the age group of 10 to 50 years to the Sabarimala temple.”The Constitution places a non-negotiable obligation on all authorities to enforce the judgments of this Court. The duty to do so arises because it is necessary to preserve the rule of law. If those whose duty it is to comply were to have discretion on whether or not to abide by a decision of the court, the rule of law would be set at naught”, said Justice Nariman in the dissent.
Justice Chandrachud had also joined Justice Nariman in the dissent in the five-judge bench. Justice Nariman said that while the citizenry was constitutionally empowered to express bona fide criticism of a judgment, it was not permissible to “thwart” or “encourage persons to thwart”, the directions or orders of the highest court.
(inputs from Livelaw.com)
