Lekha G –
The Supreme Court and the Centre have been locking horns on Covid-19 vaccination and pricing policies and over the promulgation of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance from past few weeks.
The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, L N Rao and S R Bhat had termed the Centre’s Covid-19 vaccination policy for 18-44 age group as “Prima facie arbitrary and irrational” and another Bench of Justices Rao, Hemant Gupta and Bhat had said the ordinance was reflection of Centre’s “Recalcitrant and adamant” attitude in an attempt to override the Supreme Court’s mandate.
The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had appealed to the Supreme Court to refrain from tweaking policy frameworks by the executive and said the judiciary was barred from substituting the executive’s wisdom with its own.
The Supreme Court conceded to the statements made by Mehta but said that it would not remain as a silent spectator when the policies breached the constitutional rights of citizens.
The Bench of Justices Rao, Gupta and Bhat had reserved its order on plea’s challenging the constitutional validity of Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021 that differed from mandate of Supreme Court by prescribing a four-year tenure to chairpersons and members of tribunal and also fixing age of eligibility at 50.
Justice Rao questioning the Centre asked, “If the Supreme Court gives a mandate, the legislature enacts a law without heeding it, then the Supreme Court strikes down the law and the process gets repeated…how will finality be reached?”
However, in this context Attorney General KK Venugopal said, “It is not that Parliament does not deliberate before enacting a legislation. There is a whole process to it.” and that it was the Supreme Court’s duty to determine the constitutional validity of laws enacted by the Parliament.