“This is absolutely a misplaced and unjustified allegation of the Executive on the Judiciary”. Thus, roared Mr. Justice Rajinder Sachar, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi when confronted on the issue of overstepping of judicial activism. To make his point home, he quoted the Constitution of India wherein the functional boundaries of all the three arms of the government have been explicitly defined. “Say for example, if the Executive or for that matter even the Legislature transgresses its limits or the elected representatives of the people do not function in the Constitutional manner, then, naturally Judiciary has to step in to correct the course. This is very simple. See if a complaint is lodged in the police station against any government official or an elected representative then naturally the case would come to a Court of Law wherein the judge has to decide the case in accordance with the Constitution of India, never ever caring for or influenced by the weight of the government officer or the elected representative. So, tell me where is the interference or transgression of limits.”
The Chairman of the famous Prime Minister’s High Power Committee on the Status of Muslims seemed highly optimistic about the Indo-Pak relations – the area he is most actively involved in. In his views, “Pakistan is a reality that cannot be undone. So, the political prudence of both of the nations lies in fostering close and cordial relations. As a matter of fact both of the countries are after all one and same in many respects.” Although he does not completely rule out the presence of disruptive elements both in India and Pakistan who are always keen on disturbing peace on one pretext or the other. This really saddens him no end. “Just when it seems that the two countries have struck a chord, there is this blast here or there or some other violent activity takes place and the two countries start playing the blame game that jeopardises the whole cordial atmosphere and brings to nought the earlier spade work”.
Interestingly enough, Justice Rajinder Sachar was not forthcoming on the issue of Muslim reservation. He evaded the answer by wittingly quipping, “Even Muslims have divergent views on the subject.”
Mr. Justice (Retd.) Rajinder Sachar was nominated as the Member to the UN Sub-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities at Geneva by the former Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujaral for a term of four years. Incidentally, barely days into office one of the first cases he had to face was that of Iraq. “The European Members came up to us and said that they want to have unanimous resolution condemning Iraq’s taking hostage of foreign tourists and demand their immediate release. I replied that we will be do it provided the UN lifts the embargo and let the medicines and other essential commodities enter Iraq so as to save lives of innocent civilians. To this the European Members did not agree. This way through our efforts the said Resolution could not be passed.
On the of Babri Mosque-Ramajanambhoomi controversy he clarified that legally it is a ‘Title Suit’ irrespective of the fact whether or not Rama was born at that very place. Explaining this legal term he emphasised, “Title Suit means that the case relates to the legal ownership of a particular piece of land.” As far as the legality of the structure of the Babri Mosque is concerned he maintains that it is “undisputed”. No one can deny the fact that Babri Mosque stood at that very place for about four hundred years. This reality in itself is sufficient enough for the veracity of Babri Mosque. “Thus, claim of the Hindus carries no weight. It is an open and shut case,” he insists.
Talking about his association with the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) of which he served as President, he mentioned that it was and it is and it will remain at the forefront in the people’s struggle for rights and creating a just order. “See, it was through the platform of PUCL that we fought – and fought successfully – the case regarding the compulsory declaration of assets by the candidates contesting elections. As a matter of fact the Supreme Court decided in our favour. However, the elected representatives unanimously passed the resolution saying that although it is the decision of the Supreme Court we do not adhere to it since we consider it as a direct infringement into our personal lives. Then again we went to the Supreme Court and got the decision in our favour. Now this is unjustifiably taken as over stepping of judicial activism,” remarked he.