Sambhal Case and Judicial Evasion

Published On:

The editorial discusses judicial inaction and its implications, focusing on the Supreme Court's handling of the Sambhal mosque case in Uttar Pradesh.

Judicial inaction, referred to as "judicial evasion," occurs when courts fail to take decisive actions within their adjudicative duty. In the Sambhal mosque case, the Supreme Court deferred judgment by freezing the proceedings and redirecting the matter to the Allahabad High Court. This decision temporarily reduces tensions but fails to resolve underlying issues. The case relates to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits the alteration of religious sites' character as they existed on August 15, 1947. Critics argue that the judiciary avoided addressing the Act's constitutionality, leaving room for political and communal exploitation.

The Court’s deferment mirrors earlier instances, such as its passive stance during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the farm laws, where it acted as a mediator rather than asserting its constitutional role. These actions have raised concerns over the judiciary's reluctance to engage directly with contentious constitutional questions. The editorial warns that such evasion undermines the rule of law and public trust in the judiciary’s role as a constitutional guardian.

The editorial emphasizes the need for judicial assertiveness to ensure justice and uphold constitutional values, especially in cases involving sensitive issues like religious disputes and fundamental rights. A decisive stand on the Places of Worship Act is critical for maintaining secularism and the integrity of India’s legal framework.