Mentor’s Comment: UPSC Mains have previously ‘Judicial review’ (in 2016), and ‘religiousness/religiosity and Communalism’ (in 2017).

In a 2005 paper on ‘judicial inactivism,’ scholar Chad M. Oldfather discussed how courts have a “duty to decide” and how judicial inaction can be just as impactful as judicial action. He argued that failures to fulfill this duty are harder to detect than overreaching decisions, making inaction more concerning. A recent example of judicial deferment is the Supreme Court’s handling of the Sambhal masjid case in Uttar Pradesh. The Court refrained from a final decision, temporarily halting a survey-related civil court proceeding and sending the matter to the Allahabad High Court. 

Today’s editorial underscores the approach adopted by the Supreme Court of India in the Sambhal masjid case (Uttar Pradesh).

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

The Court’s order shows, once again, a reluctance to deal with the main issue — it should have taken a clear stand on the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act.

What were the events leading up to the violence in Sambhal?

• Survey Controversy: The local civil court ordered a survey of the Sambhal masjid, which heightened tensions among community members. This survey was perceived as an infringement on religious sentiments, leading to protests and unrest.
• Political Context: The backdrop of communal politics in India, where historical grievances are often invoked, contributed to the volatility of the situation. The mosque’s status became a focal point for various groups, exacerbating tensions.
• Loss of Lives: The unrest resulting from the survey led to violence and loss of human lives, highlighting the severe implications of judicial decisions that touch on sensitive communal issues.

How did the judicial system respond?

• Supreme Court’s Order: The Supreme Court ordered a freeze on proceedings related to the survey and directed the matter back to the Allahabad High Court, effectively deferring a decisive ruling on the issue.
• Judicial Deferment: This approach reflects a pattern of judicial inaction, where the Court avoids making definitive rulings on contentious issues, opting instead for temporary measures to maintain peace.
• Failure to Uphold Legislation: Critics argue that the Court’s reluctance to uphold the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which aims to preserve the status quo of places of worship as they existed in 1947, represents a failure to honour legislative intent.

What are the implications of judicial inquiries and commissions in addressing communal tensions?

• Limited Effectiveness: Judicial inquiries and commissions often serve as mechanisms for delay rather than resolution, as seen in previous cases like those involving the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and farm laws. They may lead to temporary solutions without addressing underlying legal issues.
• Erosion of Trust: When courts engage in deferment rather than decisiveness, it can erode public trust in the judiciary’s ability to handle communal tensions effectively.
• Potential for Inaction: The reliance on committees or inquiries can create a perception that the judiciary is avoiding its duty to decide, potentially emboldening communal actors who seek to exploit legal ambiguities.

How does this case reflect broader issues of judicial accountability and public trust in the legal system?

• Judicial Inactivism: The phenomenon described by Chad M. Oldfather highlights that judicial inaction can have significant consequences, often more difficult to detect than overreach. This in-activism can undermine public confidence in judicial integrity.
• Need for Assertiveness: The Supreme Court’s reluctance to assertively interpret and uphold laws like the Places of Worship Act raises concerns about its commitment to constitutional principles such as secularism and fraternity.
• Impact on Communal Harmony: Judicial decisions—or lack thereof—play a crucial role in shaping societal dynamics. Inaction on contentious issues can exacerbate communal tensions rather than mitigate them, leading to further unrest and division within society.

Way forward: 

• Assertive Judicial Intervention: The Supreme Court should proactively address sensitive communal issues by upholding laws like the Places of Worship Act, ensuring that judicial decisions reflect the constitutional values of secularism and fraternity, and prevent further exploitation of legal ambiguities.
• Timely and Decisive Rulings: To restore public trust, the judiciary must avoid deferring critical cases to lower courts or committees and instead issue clear, binding decisions that resolve underlying legal disputes, thereby maintaining social harmony and reinforcing accountability.

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/sambhal-and-the-perils-of-judicial-evasion/article68970254.ece