Judicial Inactivism
Chad M. Oldfather's concept of "judicial inactivism" refers to when courts fail to make decisions, which can be as damaging as judicial overreach.
Judicial inaction is harder to detect but more dangerous because it allows issues to remain unresolved, creating uncertainty.
Courts have a "duty to decide," and failing to meet this duty can have serious consequences for the legal system and society.
Sambhal Masjid Case and Judicial Deferment
The Supreme Court deferred the Sambhal Masjid case to lower courts, refusing to take a strong stance on the issue.
The Court ordered a civil court freeze on the proceedings and suggested other legal remedies, which resulted in temporary relief but no final decision.
The Court's reluctance to rule on the matter highlights a trend of judicial deferment, avoiding direct engagement with controversial issues.
Failure to Uphold the Places of Worship Act
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, prohibits altering the religious character of places of worship since August 15, 1947.
The Act has been repeatedly violated by courts, including the Supreme Court, leading to prolonged legal battles on issues like the Gyanvapi and Babri Masjid.
The Court's failure to uphold the Act and decide on its validity has allowed challenges to the law to persist, which undermines its core objectives of secularism and social harmony.
Past Examples of Judicial Deferment
In the Shaheen Bagh case (2020), the Supreme Court formed a committee to mediate between protesters and the government, instead of adjudicating the legality of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).
In the Rakesh Vaishnav case (2021), the Court formed an expert committee to mediate between farmers and the government over the farm laws, rather than ruling on their legal validity.
In both cases, the Court failed to fulfill its duty to make decisions, relying instead on mediation to avoid direct legal adjudication.
The failure to decide on the farm laws led to the laws being repealed due to mass protests, not through judicial intervention.
A Missed Opportunity in the Ayodhya Case
In the Ayodhya judgment (2019), the SC acknowledged the importance of the Places of Worship Act but still allowed the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the construction of a temple on the site.
SC also ordered an alternative site for a mosque, but it contradicted its own acknowledgment of the Act by allowing a survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque, breaching the Act's provisions.
The Court's failure to assert the validity of the Places of Worship Act in this case further weakened the law’s standing.
Lack of Judicial Will
The Supreme Court had an opportunity in the Sambhal case to decisively uphold the Places of Worship Act, but it chose not to.
The Court's failure to take a firm stance on the validity of the Act in the face of ongoing challenges reflects a lack of judicial will.
A more assertive judicial posture could have prevented the continued erosion of the Act and provided clarity on the issue.
COMMENTS