Our Constitution does not permit such liberal use of NSA: Justice Govind Mathur

Image Courtesy:timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, Justice Govind Mathur, in a conversation with Indian Express, spoke about misuse of sedition law, National Security Act (NSA) and protecting citizens against any event not in accordance with the law. On dealing with ideological issues that become a part of law he said, “If ideology is in conflict with law, we are required to protect the law.”

Speaking up against the government

Justice Mathur also raised concerns over the state “taking several actions or sometimes supporting the mob that is attacking civil liberties of individuals” and emphasised upon the role of courts in protecting civil liberties. He believes that “99.9% of the citizens of this country are committed to this nation” and said that if someone is raising slogans against some legislation, it does not mean they are waging a war against the state.

“In Uttar Pradesh, I don’t know what has happened, but many people think that they can take law into their hands, they can punish people on roads and, unfortunately, to some extent, the government failed to protect such people,” he added.

He also voiced his opinion on the much liberal use of NSA. “Recently, I read somewhere that if any person is opposing (Covid-19) protocols, he will be dealt with under the NSA. Our system, our Constitution doesn’t permit for such liberal use of the NSA,” he said and added that NSA cannot be invoked in a circumstance which can be dealt with other criminal laws and national security has to be at stake in such offences. He also pointed out that the Advisory Board that confirms detentions under NSA operate in a mechanical manner and comprises bureaucrats who are political appointees. “These are political appointees, these nominations are political nominations, and while making political nominations the government must be aware that a statutory duty has to be discharged very seriously. No hanky-panky business must go on there,” he said.

Judiciary vs. Executive

He also said that the executive should not view the judiciary as an adversary and stressed upon the fact that the courts protect the State which includes the citizens and that the “State” does not mean any political party or government led by a political party or a person but it is a Union of India or a State government.

He also said that he felt guilty for the delay that was caused in the matter where the UP Recovery of Damage to Public and Private Property Ordinance, 2020 was challenged before the Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench of which he was a part. “Unfortunately, it was in March last year, when the pandemic struck. Though that matter was listed, for some reason it had to be adjourned. It has been more than a year, and the court has failed to decide the issue… I feel guilty for the delay,” he said.

When asked whether the leadership’s commitment to the Constitution also needs to be addressed, he answered in the affirmative. “There is no effort on the part of political parties as well as the executive to have constitutional values as our social values,” he said.

Appointments post retirement

He also opposed the phenomenon of judges getting appointments to Commissions and Tribunals post retirement and said that he would not accept any himself but he also refused to comment on former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi’s nomination as a Rajya Sabha member and said he would never accept such a nominated seat and would rather get elected, if at all.

Women judges

Justice Mathur said that the Bar Council of India and even state bar councils should promote women lawyers as well as lawyers belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and minority communities. He said that the Collegium system for appointing judges is flawed and has caused great injury to our justice delivering system while emphasizing that there is a need for an alternative system.

Situation in UP

When asked whether the orders of the high court have been undermined by the government, he pointed out that the high court had passed order to put certain cities under lockdown which was stayed by the Supreme Court but ultimately lockdown was imposed. He also praised the orders passed in the Hathras case which were not followed by the State. “I am of the view that honouring those directions would have enhanced the prestige of the state also. But what happened ultimately? When you talk about the position of law and order in Uttar Pradesh, I don’t think it is up to the mark… I am not saying things like there is jungle raj etc… But it is no less than that,” he said.