Supreme Court Chief Justice NV Ramana has made a big remark about the legislature. He has raised questions on the quality of laws being made in the country’s legislature i.e. Parliament and state legislatures and said that even due to bad laws, the burden on the courts is increasing. He has advised the legislature to make a quality law and also explained its method. The Chief Justice has said that there should be maximum use of standing committees for making laws, consultations should be held with all concerned and only after debate, the law should be made.
Describing the bad laws, the Chief Justice made a special mention of the prohibition law implemented in Bihar. He said that this law made in 2016 is an example of how bad law increases the burden on the courts. He made no mention of the principle of prohibition but said the law shows the government’s lack of vision. Chief Justice NV Ramana said the High Court is full of bail applications because of this law and it is taking a year each to dispose of the ordinary bail pleas.
The question is whether Chief Minister Nitish Kumar will heed the advice of the Chief Justice or will he get angry? They are so obsessed with their prohibition law that they get emotional or angry as soon as someone says something about it. If they are under their control, they should make a provision to sue those who question this law. They are not agreeable believing that due to this law both the police and the administration in the state are at a standstill. The work of both the police and the administration is left only to enforce the prohibition law. Despite this, home delivery of liquor is being done from door to door.
However, the Chief Justice has also raised questions on the laws being made in Parliament without consultation. During a speech at a law college in Vijayawada, he reminded that there was a system of standing committees in the nineties to discuss and scrutinize the law in detail, but it seems that the legislature is not making full use of them. has been Along with this, he said that a good law can be made only when all the concerned parties are involved and there is a meaningful debate on it. He said no, but can take it as a comment even after passing a law to enact three agricultural laws and then withdraw them.
