In recent discussions surrounding the challenges to constitutional amendments, a growing concern has been the manner in which such cases are assigned for hearing. The present practice, where some benches are assigned the responsibility of deciding constitutional challenges while others are not, raises questions about fairness and transparency. This selective approach undermines the credibility of the judiciary and calls into question the principle of equal treatment under the law.
One of the core tenets of the judiciary is its independence and impartiality, ensuring that no bias or undue influence can affect the decisions made. However, recent developments suggest that the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in the country, have come under scrutiny, even within judicial circles. The assignment of cases to specific benches, based merely on the appointments of individual judges, appears to undermine the notion that all judges, irrespective of their appointment or seniority, are equally qualified to hear important cases involving constitutional amendments.
It is essential that all constitutional challenges be heard by the full bench of the Supreme Court. There are several past precedents of full court hearings for challenges to constitutional amendments, which serve as strong evidence that such an approach is not only feasible but also necessary to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution. When such cases are heard by a larger, more diverse bench, it ensures that different perspectives are considered and that the decision reflects the collective wisdom of the Court, rather than being the result of a potentially narrow or partisan view.
Moreover, the legitimacy of the Supreme Court hinges on public confidence in its processes and decisions. If the public perceives that some cases are being handled by select benches while others are excluded, doubts may arise about the fairness of the proceedings. This can lead to the erosion of trust in the judiciary, which could have long-term implications for the rule of law and democratic governance. It is vital, therefore, to address such concerns proactively before they escalate into larger issues of public mistrust.
In light of these concerns, it is prudent to call for a more transparent and inclusive approach to hearing constitutional challenges. All members of the Supreme Court should have an equal role in deciding such important matters, regardless of their specific appointments. By doing so, the Court would not only reaffirm its commitment to impartiality and fairness but also demonstrate its dedication to safeguarding the integrity of the Constitution.
Ultimately, the challenge of addressing concerns about the independence of the judiciary and ensuring fair hearings is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reaffirm its commitment to justice. By hearing constitutional amendment cases with the full bench, the Court would enhance its credibility and restore public confidence in its ability to impartially interpret and protect the Constitution.
ReplyForward |