Anyone who follows matters of law, or has been following clashes of India's judiciary with the legislature, will not be surprised by the fact that Justice Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal has devoted the last few weeks of his stint as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to resolving the issue of Schedule Nine. Schedule Nine is the part of the Indian Constitution that deals with legislation considered immune from judicial scrutiny.
With the "sealing" drive in full force in Delhi, illegal shop after shop being locked up on court orders, Sabharwal has had occasion to examine the suggestion that a legislation which provides relief to Delhi's traders be safeguarded by Schedule Nine.
Never one to shirk a difficult issue, Sabharwal has scheduled hearings on this case on a daily basis. His imminent retirement in January next year reportedly spurring him on, he appears determined to weigh all arguments in the case and deliver yet another landmark judgement to cap his memorable career.
Sabharwal has always found himself in the eye of the storm. He is known to have a keen ear to the ground and is considered a zealous defender of public propriety, and has well-articulated views on several controversial subjects. As soon as he took over as the CJI, Sabharwal said that he favoured an end to capital punishment.
A feisty judge, he delivered significant judgements in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha bribery case involving then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, the medical scam case and lately in deeming the dissolution of Bihar assembly as unconsitutional.
One of his most famous cases was the cancellation of 81 petrol pump licenses given by the then NDA government, a politically high profile case.
Nor is his encounter with Delhi encroachment and land politics new. His various judgements ordering demolition of unauthroised constructions in Delhi when he was a judge in the Delhi High Court and later when he was posted to Mumbai, earned him the reputation of being a tough judge.
This, however, is not the only reason that Sabharwal will be remembered. Members of the legislature say that never in the history of independent India has there been so much of tension between the judiciary and the legislature, be it on the Jharkhand matter, or on President's rule in Bihar, or even on the question of whether Members of Parliament can be removed by Parliament.
Sabharwal is not known to suffer fools gladly. Some of his bitter critics see a megalomanical streak in him, snorting that many of his arguments are specious, even pretexts for judicial activism unbecoming of a democracy. Whatever be the case, though he may not be a hanging judge, he is no less lethal. And will be remembered for it.
