In a democratic country like India, full of diversities, the judiciary is considered the supreme guardian of the Constitution. It not only interprets the law but also protects the fundamental rights of citizens. However, does the judiciary sometimes falter in performing this duty? Or do some judges, knowingly or unknowingly, become biased while delivering verdicts in certain cases, leading to contradictions? In matters of national interest and terrorism, judicial intervention has often sparked controversy. The Supreme Court’s hyper-activism in cases such as the new farm laws and the Waqf Board Amendment Act are major examples. Debates often arise about when such intervention serves as a protective shield and when it becomes dangerous. Delay in punishing terrorists or providing legal protection to anti-national elements under the guise of freedom of expression fall into this very category. Holding up laws passed by Parliament without solid justification is also a major point of contention against the judiciary.
In this context, it is important to mention a statement by former Lieutenant General Devendra Pratap Pandey, which came after the massacre of 27 Hindus by terrorists in Pahalgam on April 22. In a strong reaction, Pandey had said that the judges of the Supreme Court should visit Pahalgam to understand the ground reality of the terror attack. In an interview with a news agency, he stated that the Supreme Court’s intervention in matters of national security led to delays in decisions by the government and the army. According to him, judges questioned the government’s anti-terrorism policies, which indirectly contributed to the attack. He emphasized that the judges should personally witness the local conditions, the impact of terrorism, and the challenges faced by the security forces. He urged that the court should not only consider the legal aspects but also understand the practical realities before making judgments. He appealed to the Supreme Court to allow the government and the army to work independently in matters of national security.
It is noteworthy that national interest is a broad concept encompassing the country’s security, economic stability, social harmony, and sovereignty. Terrorism, which is a grave threat at both national and global levels, directly affects national interest. To combat such threats, governments enact strict laws such as UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) and NSA (National Security Act). These laws are intended for swift action and punishment of criminals, but at times, they also become tools for suppressing individual liberties. This is where the role of the judiciary begins to examine the constitutionality of the government’s actions.
Excessive judicial interference in sensitive matters like terrorism can sometimes become a threat to national security. Terrorist activities evolve rapidly, and investigating agencies need the autonomy to take quick decisions. Repeated judicial interventions can disrupt the investigation process. For example, in some high-profile terrorism cases, granting bail to suspects or prolonged hearings on the admissibility of evidence can weaken the investigation. In the case of Ajmal Kasab after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, it took years to complete the judicial process, raising concerns about whether such delays hinder the fight against terrorism.
Another dangerous aspect of judicial interference emerges when it encroaches upon the domain of the executive. In matters related to national interest, such as border security or anti-terrorism strategies, the executive needs to take swift and confidential decisions. If the judiciary begins to repeatedly review such decisions, it may adversely impact the efficiency of the government. For instance, in some cases, the decision to grant bail to individuals arrested under UAPA dampened the morale of investigative agencies. This led to a perception that the judiciary is soft on terrorism, which can breed public distrust.
On the other hand, the judiciary argues that it is merely protecting the Constitution. Fighting terrorism cannot be an excuse to violate citizens’ fundamental rights. Investigating agencies, sometimes acting in haste or under political pressure, detain individuals without sufficient evidence. In such instances, judicial intervention becomes essential. For example, in some recent cases, journalists, social activists, and students were arrested under UAPA, but the courts found no substantial evidence against them. The judiciary not only restored these individuals’ liberty but also sent a message to the government that misuse of laws would not be tolerated.
Another dimension of this dilemma is public trust. After terrorist incidents, the public expects swift justice. If the judiciary repeatedly grants bail to suspects or delays investigations, it creates a perception among the public that the justice system is weak. Conversely, if the judiciary delivers harsh punishment without thorough investigation, it may lead to injustice against innocents, increasing discontent in society. Both scenarios are harmful to democracy.
This problem can only be resolved through better coordination among the judiciary, executive, and legislature. While formulating laws to combat terrorism, it must be ensured that constitutional values are not violated. Investigative agencies must become more transparent and accountable so that their actions are not questioned. At the same time, the judiciary must understand that its intervention in matters of national interest and terrorism must be balanced. Excessive interference not only hinders investigations but can also pose a threat to national security.
However, the other side of the coin must also be acknowledged. Judicial intervention, in many cases, protects national interest. When the government or investigating agencies detain someone for terrorist activities without solid evidence, the judiciary safeguards individual freedom. In the 1990s, numerous cases of misuse of TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act) came to light, where innocent individuals languished in prison for years. In many such cases, the Supreme Court intervened not only to release the innocent but also warned the government against the misuse of stringent laws. Such intervention upholds democracy, as detention without evidence erodes public trust.
In conclusion, it can be said that the judiciary plays a crucial role in matters related to national interest and terrorism. The impact of its actions depends on how balanced its interventions are. Therefore, it would not be wrong to state that in issues of national interest, the judiciary must strike a balance between safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring national security so that both democracy and the country’s safety are preserved.
(Written by Sanjay Saxena, Senior Journalist)
