The Role of the Judiciary in Pandemic Response: An Analysis of India’s Supreme Court's Interactions with the PMO

Introduction

The ongoing global pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges for all governments, including India. This has led to increased scrutiny of the role of the judiciary in ensuring effective governance and pandemic response. A recent instance involves the Supreme Court of India (SC) directing the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to undertake certain actions. This article explores the complexities and motivations behind such judicial interventions, while providing a balanced analysis of the delicate balance of powers in a democratic state.

Understanding the Roles of the Judiciary and Legislative

In a democratic framework, the judiciary is meant to be independent and act as a check on the legislative and executive branches. However, in recent years, there has been a notable trend of judicial activism, where the judiciary actively participates in social and public welfare issues. This is marked by instances where the SC may question the actions of the PMO and various state governments to ensure that public welfare is not compromised.

Both the PM of India and the SC are established under the Honourable Constitution of India, designed to serve the people. During the pandemic, the SC has taken steps to ensure that the PMO and the government at large are held accountable for their actions, particularly in addressing the needs of the populace during a critical time. These interventions are aimed at ensuring that the government lives up to the expectations of the people and provides basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare.

Premature Solutions vs. Crisis Response

Celebrities and private individuals are not bound to play a direct role in providing aid during a crisis, but the central government has a moral and legal obligation to come up with preemptive solutions. The current focus on who is to blame during the pandemic is counterproductive and diverts attention from essential actions that can mitigate suffering. Instead of assigning blame, the focus should be on ensuring that all citizens have access to these basic necessities.

The SC's directive to the PMO reflects a broader trend of judicial activism. While this activism may sometimes seem to be overreach, it is grounded in the constitutional right to life and access to healthcare for all citizens. The SC is grappling with the realities of the current crisis and is intervening where necessary to ensure that the government is functioning effectively.

Judicial Activism: Context and Impact

Judicial activism, particularly in the context of the pandemic, is not a new phenomenon. It has roots extending back to the 1970s, when the judiciary began taking on a more proactive role in public welfare issues. However, the current focus on such activism is amplified by the media and the increased public awareness driven by the pandemic.

In the current scenario, the SC's interventions can be seen as a form of judicial activism aimed at ensuring that the government is held accountable for public welfare during the pandemic. While the judiciary has the authority to question and direct the PMO, the appropriateness of such actions is a matter of debate.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judiciary's role in pandemic response is a complex and ongoing debate. While the SC's directives to the PMO reflect a commitment to public welfare, they also highlight the challenges of maintaining a balance between judicial activism and the need for legislative and executive autonomy. As the situation evolves, it is crucial for all stakeholders to work together to ensure that the government can effectively address the needs of its citizens.