By Nikita Shankar:
Issues
Judge Abhay S. Oka suggests debating the standards to be followed while considering Article 32 petitions.
- draws attention to the growing volume of these petitions weighing on the Supreme Court.
- Concerns whether a test needs to be implemented to control the use of Article 32.
Facts of the Case
- In the Ambedkar Memorial Lecture, Justice Oka talks on the past, present, and future of Article 32.
- Expresses worry about the rise in Article 32 petitions and the resulting burden on the courts.
- Emphasizes the need to strike a balance between reducing the backlog of cases and ensuring access to justice.
Arguments and Reasoning
- Justice Oka expresses doubts regarding the practical ramifications of the constitutional provision for direct appeal to the Supreme Court, while acknowledging its existence.
- outlines a potential standard for determining whether Article 32 petitions qualify in order to lighten the load on the Supreme Court.
- encourages the legal community to have productive discussions and constructive criticism in order to overcome these issues.
Key Statements
- Justice Oka highlights how important it is to have conversations about judicial objectives and constitutional issues.
- Argues for a careful strategy to strike a balance between upholding constitutional rights and handling backlogs of cases.
- Opposes the idea of a single, universally applicable remedy and supports a range of judicial perspectives.
Conclusion:
- A critical discussion about striking a balance between the efficient operation of the judiciary and the availability of justice is sparked by Justice Oka’s proposal.
- It emphasizes how important it is to give careful attention to the future of Article 32 petitions and the Supreme Court’s responsibility to protect basic rights, as well as to solicit feedback from relevant stakeholders.