SC verdicts not same as statute

NEW DELHI: Giving a new twist to the controversy over judicial activism, the Supreme Court has, in a fresh judgment, ruled that its verdicts shouldn’t be construed as “Acts of Parliament”.

“They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes,” said a bench of justices Dr Arijit Pasayat and P Sathasivam, ruling over a Karnataka high court judgment in a forests case.

“Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches, else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it,” the judges recalled earlier observations underlining the necessity of judicial pronouncements.

Quashing the HC judgment based on other verdicts and upholding the land owner’s right to trees planted on his land, the judges said, “Reliance by courts on an earlier decision without looking into the factual background of the case is not permissible.”

The HC had held that in respect of reserved trees, the ownership was not with the government but with the owner of the land.

The present ruling assumes significance in view of the raging controversy caused by a bench of the apex court that castigated the subordinate judiciary and also found fault with its own judgments for overreaching judicial constraints.

The judgment particularly hit at the successful PIL jurisprudence and chief justice KG Balakrishnan immediately declared it wasn’t applicable to the court. But he hastened to add that fresh guidelines for PILs would be soon framed.

b_rakesh@dnaindia.net