Uk Supreme Court Has Set An Example For How Indian Judiciary Should Defend Democracy scroll.in

The British court acted swiftly and sternly against an anti-democratic executive decision. Contrast that with the Indian court’s lethargy on Kashmir. It was perhaps the stickiest constitutional quagmire the United Kingdom had faced in 50 years. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in an attempt to evade parliamentary scrutiny of his government’s actions with regards to the country’s planned exit from the European Union, had in August advised the Queen – who is the head of state – to prorogue Parliament for three weeks in September.

Johnson’s decision was immediately denounced by politicians across the political spectrum as an attack on democracy and the British tradition of parliamentary supremacy. But the prime minister refused to withdraw his recommendation to the Queen. This has not happened. In habeas corpus writ petitions challenging the detentions of political leaders and others in Kashmir, the Supreme Court refused to examine the legality of the matter immediately. On the constitutional questions that have been raised by the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, the court does not seem to think this is a matter urgent enough for a swift hearing. It has scheduled a hearing for October. Instead, a five-judge bench continues to hear the title suits in the Babri Masjid case, showing great eagerness in completing the arguments.