In news- The Supreme Court has recently come under the public gaze for its repeated failures particularly with respect to sentinel guarding our rights.
What is Sentinel on the qui vive?
In the following cases the Supreme Court had said that the sentinel on the qui vive refers to its role as the guarding citizens rights and democracy:
- In P.K. Ghosh v. J.G. Rajput (1995), the Supreme Court held, Credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary.
- This is necessary not only for doing justice but also for ensuring that justice is seen to be done.
- In its own words, the Supreme Court has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui vive” as regards fundamental rights.
- The right to get redress from the Court is itself a fundamental right, and the Court cannot abandon its own duty in this regard.
- In Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda case of 2002, the Supreme Court had said that the courts exercising the power of judicial review both under articles 226, 32 and 136 of the constitution act as a sentinel on the qui vive.
- In October 2020, Justice D Y Chandrachud had observed that the phrase ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ for the Supreme Court, signifying its role as the ‘watchful guardian’ of our democracy, may have become weather-beaten but judges must constantly remind themselves of its value if the call of the constitutional conscience is to retain meaning.