In what could open up a fresh debate on judicial overreach and the distribution of power between two important pillars of Indian democracy - the executive and the judiciary - the Centre has filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court’s order on the disbanding of Special Police Officers (SPOs).
In the review petition filed yesterday, the Centre raised four major objections against the Apex Court order including the doctrine of separation of power between the different arms of the state and the exclusive right of the state or the executive to decide on key policy issues including security.
Putting forward the argument that tribals armed with bows and arrows were at the forefront of the freedom struggle waged against the British, the petition asks why tribals cannot wage an armed struggle against the oppressive Naxals.
While veteran lawyer KTS Tulsi thinks that the review petition raises very important questions for the future of democracy and rule of law, petitioner Nandini Sundar, yet to receive a copy of the review petition, doesn’t find merit in any of the Centre’s arguments.
“How can you base the argument on the doctrine of separation of powers when the Supreme Court’s order is on the question of fundamental rights? And it falls within the purview of the Supreme Court to see if these basic constitutional provisions are being violated or not,” retorts Sundar.
The state has not only put thousands of people’s lives in jeopardy by putting arms in the hands of illiterate and poor tribals but has also violated the SPOs right to life by putting them in dangerous situations, she says.
“If Supreme Court cannot intervene in policy matters than why did Prakash Singh go to the court? Also the government based its Model Police Act on the Supreme Court’s order. The court has given orders in the matters of OBC reservation, education. Are they not policy matters?”
