Stop the preaching, judges, do the job
Supreme Court has with commendable alacrity taken up for review a judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court in a case of underage sexual abuse that is problematic on several counts. First, the judgment goes beyond its brief to decide on the merits of the appeal against the ruling of a lower court. Second, the judgment suggests amendment of the law on underage sex and invoked discretionary powers to pronounce the verdict.
Third, the judgment contains a set of principles of moral conduct by adolescents. Each of these makes the verdict a candidate for appeal. However, for the apex court, which has waded into the matter on its own, the most disturbing aspect is the blending of personal morality and the law by the high court judges.
The job of judges is to interpret law, not to thunder from pulpits and preach. That the apex court has set its own house straight on extrajudicial wanderings is welcome.
Morality enters the law through legislative action, and the judiciary's role is to uphold the law. Judges can point out to lawmakers' gaps in the law that render them incapable of deciding.
They can also evaluate whether laws are in consonance with the underlying legal basis of the country. What judges cannot do is attempt to be some kind of empowered version of a social media influencer and demand social change through personal beliefs delivered from the bench they believe to be a mount for sermons. The bar is raised progressively from morals to ethics to law, at which point it has acquired a rigidity that can only be altered through legislation.
Yet, the process of arriving at a decision allows judges to air their judicial opinion.
