18

A three-judge Bench bf the Supreme Court in the Parkash Singh case

(2006), completely disillusioned with the crime control situation: in the

country, issued guidelines that crystallized in the form of a seven-point

strategy for securing “an efficient and better criminal justice delivery system”

and to be realized within a time-bound framework.' In the court’s view this was

necessary ‘for doing complete justice’ in the matter before it. Such a measure

continues to draw criticism on grounds of unwarranted intrusion into the

political cases. However, the Supreme Court’s response is that under Article

142 they have occupied the ‘space’ exclusively reserved for the legislature and

the executive, but only for' such time till they come and occupy what is

legitimately theirs for fulfilling the purposes of the Constitution.

Where has the Mathuf Katju Bench faulted? Aren’t the judges entitled

to have their own judgement? Aren’t they free to dissent from the holdings of

other Benches? They are indeed. However, while doing so in the instaht case,

they have committed, unwillingly perhaps, an act of judicial impropriety,

which is the canon to unify judges and the judiciary. ‘

Bearing in mind that they were strongly opposed to the views expressed

earlier by the Benches, both equal and greater and greater in strength, they

could have appended the note of their disapproval and requested the Chief

Justice to constitute a special Constitution bench to take care of their

legitimate concerns. This is the course, for instance, which was followed by

the five-judge Constitution Bench that wanted certain misgivings abbut the

basic structural doctrine of the Constitution clarified by the larger Constitution

bench. Accordingly, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho

case (2007) authoritatively laid down the ambit of the basic structure doctrine
through a unanimous judgembnt. !