This article appeared in The Hindu, 4th June, regarding the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Kerela Hight Court in Kochi, on a case where the president of the Perumatty panchayat had refused to renew the liicence granted earlier to the Coca-Cola
company's plant at Plachimada in Palakkad district on the grounds of excessive ground water exploitation by the company. This article challenges the judgment which has been in the favour of the company and raises important questions regarding not only the
integrity of the judicial system but also the insensitivity of major industries of the country towards environmental and social issues. Following is an excerpt from the article:
The former Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, has observed that "`Coca-Cola' as law has made an imbroglio of our writ jurisdiction and jurisprudence." On Wednesday, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kochi directed the president
of the Perumatty panchayat to renew in a week the licence granted earlier to the Coca-Cola company's plant at Plachimada in Palakkad district. In a statement, the eminent jurist said: "I have great respect for the judiciary, of which I have been a member both
in Kerala and in the apex court. But non-criticism of judicial pronouncements when one considers them as aberrational is a failure of a jurist's duty to the Constitution and the non-exercise of the fundamental right of freedom of expression. We are governed
by the Constitution, but it has been said that the Constitution is what the judges say it is. This does not mean that the `robed brethren' can reduce the law to mere judicial ipse dixits. I suspect the wisdom and constitutionality of the Coca-Cola judgment
recently pronounced by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Maybe I am wrong, or maybe the concerned judges are in error. When licence has been refused for Coca-Cola by a local authority, which is necessary under municipal law, the court cannot hold
that, in certain circumstances, the licence may be deemed to have been granted, thus nullifying the statute. I have not had the time to investigate dialectically the many dimensions of this pronouncement. I must also confess that I have not fully investigated
how, in the face of an earlier decision, a fresh case was instituted before a different bench. This calls for a closer study of the procedure adopted and the substantive law declared. In short, `Coca-Cola' as law has made an imbroglio of our writ jurisdiction
and jurisprudence.