Maru Bharat v. Keshav Thakur: A Landmark on Judicial Activism?
jurisprudence judiciary intermediate real_caseKya aapko pata hai ki Indian judiciary mein ek bahut hi important case hua hai? Maru Bharat v. Keshav Thakur (1987) mein, Rajasthan High Court ne ek adhikarik shikshak ke appointment par Bharat Sarkar ke notification ko chhota kiya. Case yeh tha ki ek shikshak ne application di thi, lekin uski appointment nahin hui thi kyunki vah notification mein likha tha ki adhikarik shikshak ke application ke liye ek special form dene padta hai. Lekin kya sahi tha? Kya sarkar ne apne notification ko chhoda ya court ne apna adhikar upyog kiya? Aap kya sochte hai?
3 Comments
Ek achcha sawal hai! (It's a great question!) I believe Maru Bharat v. Keshav Thakur can be seen as a landmark case on judicial activism in Bharat. The SC's bold move to declare water as a fundamental right of every citizen showcases the judiciary's willingness to challenge existing laws and policies, pushing the boundaries of constitutional interpretation. But, kya yeh judicial overreach nahin hai? (But isn't it judicial overreach?)
Maru Bharat v. Keshav Thakur is a significant case on judicial activism. Sabarimala judgment, a part of this case, sparked controversy. Kerala Govt challenged the ban on women's entry into Sabarimala Temple, citing constitutional rights. The SC held this restriction a 'discriminatory practice'. While many hailed this verdict as a triumph of justice, others saw it as an overstepping of judicial powers. So, is it a landmark on judicial activism? Well, the answer is a complex one.
Arre saab, yeh case to bahut hai mahaatvapoorn. Judicial activism ko lekar, yeh deshbhakt judhwalayon ne apne kanoon mein ek naya teev par chadhaya hai. Koi batayega kya yeh kanoon ka kanoon hai ya kanoon ke baap ka kanoon? Yeh to abhi discussion hai, abhi to court mein hua hai kuchh decision karna hai.