New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) Friday took exception to the government and its agencies for not being interested in executing its orders, and asked solicitor general Tushar Mehta to read its dissenting judgment in the Sabarimala case pronounced Thursday.
Dismissing the Enforcement Directorate’s plea against grant of bail to Karnataka Congress MLA D.K. Shivakumar, a bench of Justice Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat told solicitor general Mehta to circulate to the government and concerned authorities that part of the dissenting judgment which said that it was the duty of all authorities to carry out the orders of the top court.
“Please read our Thursday judgment on Sabarimala. Have it circulated to your governments and authorities,” Justice Nariman told solicitor general Mehta.
As the solicitor general sought to dispel the court’s impression, Justice Nariman pointed towards his forehead and said, “This impression is now firmly imprinted in our minds that you are not interested in implementing the court’s orders.”
While rejecting the ED’s plea against the Delhi high court’s order granting bail to Mr Shivakumar, the court issued notice to income tax authorities and directed that in the meanwhile, no coercive action would be taken against Mr Shivakumar.
The ED was caught on the wrong foot when senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that the ED’s petition challenging the grant of bail to Mr Shivakumar by the high court was a copy of the petition filed by it earlier in the case of former finance minister P. Chidambaram.
In the said petition, Chidambaram had been described as the Union home minister, which he was.
Advocate Singhvi who appeared for Mr Shivakumar said that he wished he was the home minister but he was only a MLA.
Speaking for himself and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Nariman in his dissenting judgment in the Sabarimala case Thursday said, “The Constitution places a non-negotiable obligation on all authorities to enforce the judgments of this Court. The duty to do so arises because it is necessary to preserve the rule of law. If those whose duty it is to comply were to have discretion on whether or not to abide by a decision of the court, the rule of law would be set at naught.”
