The Supreme Court order in the ongoing PUCL case against corruption in the Food Corporation of India has serious implications, for both the government and the judiciary. For one, despite expressly avowing that it will stay away from getting into the nitty gritty of running the government, the Court has gone and done precisely that. The Court is on the side of the angels when it suggests the government look at giving foodgrains to the poor for free or at vastly reduced rates, but this cannot be the Court?s concern?and just in case the government thought this was just a suggestion, the Court was quick to say to the government counsel ?tell your minister that distribution of rotting foodgrain was a part of our order and not just an observation.? If the Court is looking at the nitty gritty of government action in case of the PDS?the amount of foodgrains the FCI should be procuring, how this is to be stored, whether rented storage space should be used?what?s to prevent this from creeping into other areas in the future? Going by the McKinsey estimate, 40% of fruits and vegetables rot, so will the Court direct they be given away free?
What makes the order worse, of course, is its timing. The Supreme Court?s rebuking the government counsel, for instance, came the same day it admitted a curative petition on a judgement given by the Court itself in the Bhopal case. A few days ago, the environment ministry came down on the Vedanta mining project in Orissa, which, the company was happy to say, had been cleared by the Supreme Court. The Court clearance may have been subject to the company fulfilling several criteria, in terms of getting the tribals to agree to giving up their land, but the apex court did not have a monitoring mechanism to ensure these were met?it?s good that it didn?t since getting into a monitoring mechanism is pretty much like getting into the act of governance itself, and is replete with a host of attendant dangers. Apart from others, there is always the danger of the government, through Parliament, over-ruling the judiciary. India needs a strong judiciary, protected from the government?s interference, but for that to happen the judiciary also needs to exercise due restraint on the areas it wants to get into. It is already at odds with the government on issues like transparency and on appointment and removal of judges. The last thing it needs is to add to its woes.
