Legislature, Judiciary and Executive are the three established organs of a State. The constitution assigns them their respective duties and obligations. Theoretically speaking, there has not to be any clash among these organs on major issues and they work independent of each other. But that does not mean that they work in opposite or different directions. As far as the interest of the state and the nation are concerned, they have to adopt resilient approach without compromising the basic principles of good governance. In practice although the Executive is invested with vast power and scope of implementing the will of the State, yet it is enjoined to honour the resolutions of the legislature and the authority of the judiciary.
Judiciary in a State is actually a mixture of law, justice, humanism and dignity of the State. None of these organs has absolute power; what they have is balance of power. Orders and decisions of the Executive or Legislature can be challenged in judicial dispensation and even the verdicts of the judiciary can be appealed against in superior courts. Usual practice is that when the Apex Court issues a verdict, it has the status of law and cannot be challenged except in very special cases an appeal can be made to the President. In this theoretical background, the State Government/Cabinet is not justified in either deferring a decision on the implementation of the verdict of a court especially when the verdict comes from the Supreme Court or in bring in untenable reasons for non-compliance. It can lead to contempt of court. Therefore, the controversy on the creation of mere 32 posts in the State High Court, which included two posts each of Registrar Inspection and Joint Registrar Inspection and other supporting staff, is not to be termed as standoff between the Government and the High Court but unjustifiable act of the Government in not implementing the court order. The Government should take care that it is not caught on the wrong foot.
Follow our WhatsApp channel