Anti-terror law should not be misused to quell dissent or harass citizens, Supreme Court judge Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has said in an address on Indo-U.S. legal ties.
“Criminal law, including anti-terror legislation, should not be misused for quelling dissent or harassment to citizens,” he stated on Monday in a speech on the ‘Role of the Supreme Court in protecting the fundamental rights in challenging times’.
The judiciary must remain the first line of defence against any move to deprive citizens of their liberty. “Our courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defence against the deprivation of liberty of citizens. Deprivation of liberty for even a single day is one too many. We must always be mindful of the deeper systemic issues of our decisions,” he observed.
Justice Chandrachud said that some may dub the role of the court as “judicial activism” or “judicial overreach”. “The Supreme Court is a counter-majoritarian institution sworn to protect the rights of socio-economic minorities,” he highlighted.
“The actions of the government had far-reaching effects on the constitutional rights of people, which involved right to affordable healthcare, including vaccination; rights of labourers, including migrant labourers and factory workers; right to livelihood; and rights of prisoners. Many such cases of constitutional violations found their way to the Supreme Court,” he pointed out.
As the “guardian of the Constitution”, the Supreme Court had to put a break where executive or legislative actions infringed fundamental human rights, he asserted. He detailed the court’s suo motu actions to ensure vaccination, improve COVID-19 management and decongestion of prisons to prevent the spread of the virus.
Lockdowns
The judge noted how there was no provision under the Constitution for declaration of environmental or public health related emergencies. Thus, the legislature had no role to play in the declaration of lockdowns. The lockdowns, instead, were a result of executive decrees. The State governments, in fact, used the colonial era Epidemic Diseases Act to impose lockdowns on the public.
“The Indian government did not use its emergency powers to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the Union government invoked the National Disaster Management Act to declare the COVID-19 pandemic as a ‘disaster’ within the meaning of the Act… Thus, the lockdown was a result of executive decrees, and the legislature did not play any role in its creation. The State governments on the other hand relied on the Epidemic Diseases Act, which is a colonial era law,” he stated.
The judge, who is also heading the e-Committee, said the pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns “gave an impetus to the judiciary of the country to increase our reliance on technology and to use it for efficient court management”.
“For the past one year now, Indian courts have been holding virtual hearings to ensure that access to justice is not impeded even during times of a crisis,” he added.
