Author- Hitansha, a 1st year law student at University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh
Abstract: This article examines the Indian Judiciary’s role in addressing legislative silence, and focuses on the principles and challenges of judicial interpretation. It explores how courts fill the blanks in the absence of legislation to ensure justice while respecting legislative supremacy. The article highlights key case studies, including landmark judgments that have shaped contemporary judicial practice and common law of the country. It also addresses concerns about judicial overreach and the need for judicial restraint. By emphasizing the importance of consistent interaction between the legislature and judiciary, this work contributes to the ongoing discussions on the separation of powers and the evolution of jurisprudence in India.
According to Brihaspati: ” The court should not give its decision by merely following the letter of the shastra for if the decision is completely devoid of reasoning, the result is injustice (dharma-hani).”
Judicial interpretation refers to effectively explaining or clarifying or shaping the meaning and scope of laws and constitutional provisions. The Indian Judiciary is empowered by the Constitution for judicial review over legislative and executive actions, covered under its multiple articles – Article 13(1), Article 32, and Article 226. The power allows the Indian Judiciary to ensure that the construction of law aligns with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience, safeguarding individual rights. The Legislature formulates laws and policies, as described in Articles 79 to 122 of the Constitution of India. But sometimes, ambiguities or silence in legislative provisions can create gaps in the law that need prompt clarification. Therefore, when there is a legislative gap or when existing laws do not address changing societal needs, the judiciary steps in to fill the “void”. A provision may be invalidated by the judiciary if it is ultra vires the Constitutional provisions and go beyond the limits of Legislative domain. This is an example of Judicial activism when judges interpret the laws in a way to consider broader societal implication and adapt to the dynamic nature of society.
In Kautilya’s Arthashastra, it is emphasized that judicial interpretation shall focus on upholding ‘Dharma’ (righteousness) as the core guiding principle, where judges were expected to interpret laws based on their understanding of ethical principles, considering the context of each case, all with the ultimate goal of maintaining social order and the welfare of the state. Society is dynamic in nature and tend to evolve and laws are also required to change to adapt to the societal needs. The evolution of Judicial interpretation in common law system like India, reflects a really active approach. It encompasses centuries of legal advancements, colonial impact, and reforms in the post-independence era. In the contemporary era, Judges engage in by broad Interpretation of the Constitution, Expansion of Constitutional Rights, Public Interest Litigation etc. Public Interest Litigation is used as a powerful weapon to combat governmental transgression and social oppression.
In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court stated that the Constitution’s basic structure, including the separation of powers, cannot be changed or amended through parliamentary legislation. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the apex court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution and ruled that the right to life under Article 21 is protected by principles of natural justice. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the supreme court declared section 377 of IPC unconstitutional and decriminalized homosexuality. In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the apex court ruled that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2019), the Supreme Court ruled that the practice of excluding women from the temple violated women’s rights and infringed on their fundamental freedom to practice their religion. All the above stated cases shows that the judiciary became more proactive in shaping public policy and common law of the country while addressing societal issues through judicial interpretation, thereby ushering an era of social transformation.
There are various legal theories suggesting judicial interpretation. One of the theories is “Purposivism”, which argues that “the legislation is a purposive act, and judges should construe statutes to execute that legislative purpose.” Judges should interpret laws in a way that achieves the actual purpose, ensuring they address the issue the law was created to solve. Indian Legal system is based on common law which is directly related to judicial interpretation as it is a system where main sources of law are primarily developed through court decisions, meaning judges interpret and apply judicial precedents to decide new cases, rather than relying solely on the literal text of the statutes. The Indian Constitution follows the principle of separation of powers though not rigidly as in United States. In India, the principle is followed to guard against tyranny and enhance efficiency in governance, but with some modifications to accommodate India’s Democratic framework. This system necessitates some overlap between the functions of the three branches of government, incorporating checks and balances to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful or exceeds its authority. A significant question arises about whether judicial intervention to address gaps in legislation represents a judicial overreach. The case of Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2023) highlights this issue. In this case, the Apex Court, sitting as a Constitution Bench, formed a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India to guide the President in appointing members of the Election Commission of India (ECI) until Parliament enacts a law. The Court clarified the distinction between “supplanting” legislative functions (replacing them) and “supplementing” them (filling gaps) through judicial directions and considered judicial review as a powerful weapon against unconstitutional use of power. It emphasized that the doctrine of separation of powers need not be applied strictly and that judicial intervention is sometimes justified to address legislative voids. It was consistently held that a legislation can be invalidated only on grounds of legislative competence, abridgment of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions and manifest arbitrariness. The Gujarat High court in the case of Ashok Ambu Parmar v. The Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City and Ors. (1986), held that while interpreting a legislative act, courts will consider its fair and intended meaning over a strict literal approach, ensuring the law aligns with its actual purpose. There are various rules of statutory interpretation but the paramount rule is that every statute must reflect its clear and expressed intention. Courts presume that legislators aim to serve the public interest and avoid interpretations contrary to it, striving to uphold legislative intent while serving the public interest.
In the landmark judgment of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court issued the Vishakha Guidelines to promote gender equality and combat workplace sexual harassment, given the lack of specific legislation on this issue. These guidelines were effective until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted, a full 15 years later. The case of Vishakha is one of the cases where judicial interpretation filled the legislative gap and set a perfect example of filling the ‘void’.
However, there are various challenges and criticisms that it blurs the line of distinction between Legislature and Judiciary. It has led to various controversies and debates over the question of supremacy between them. Judiciary might overstep its boundaries which often lead to ‘judicial overreach’. Judicial Overreach is undesirable in a democracy as it disturbs the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances, which can lead to loss of faith and accountability in the democratic institution. In addition to these, Excessive Judicial intervention can open doors for political influence as parties might try to manipulate the judiciary to achieve their goals, which may further result in potential abuse of power and uncertainty. So in order to maintain the principle of separation of powers and uphold the legitimacy of the three organs of government, the judiciary in 2008 in the case of Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass by relying emphasis on various cases, for instance, Vemareddy Kumaraswammy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Tata Cellular v. Union of India, upheld that judges must respect their constitutional limits and not encroach upon the roles of the legislature or executive while adhering to the principle of separation of powers. Judicial restraint prevents abuse of power and misuse, fosters respect and equality among the three branches of government by minimizing inter-branch interference, ensuring stability, and maintaining the judiciary’s independence. Overstepping into legislative or administrative functions risks politicizing the judiciary and eroding its impartiality. Judicial restraint, therefore, emphasizes humility, self-restraint, and respect, avoiding the unpredictability of judicial activism and preserving the balance among the three organs of the government. Thus, Judges while interpreting the statutes should ensure a balanced approach to ensure harmony between judiciary and legislature, fostering a healthy democracy.
Conclusion: The Indian Judiciary plays a critical role in addressing the gaps left by legislative silence. The courts interpreting the laws and fill the ‘void’ when the legislature provides no clear guidance and it is ambiguous in nature. The judiciary by judicial interpretation has shaped the common law framework of the country. It underscores the judiciary’s responsibility of serving public interest, safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that legal gaps do not undermine rights or disrupt the legal system. This role is essential so that the law continues to evolve and adapt to the dynamic nature of society, even when the legislature has not yet addressed emerging issues. However, the judges are preferred to take a balanced approach, where judicial interpretation is exercised with restraint to avoid overreach and maintain respect for legislative supremacy. A harmonious relationship between the judiciary and legislature is essential in order to maintain the doctrine of separation of powers and checks and balances, ensuring that justice is served while preserving the integrity of the legal framework.
FAQs:
- What is Legislative silence?
Legislative silence is when there is no provision in the existing framework related to the specific issue or when there is lack of specific action from the legislature regarding the issue. It means the law is ambiguous or silent on the issue. For example, the Supreme Court issued the Vishakha Guidelines in 1997 to promote gender equality and combat workplace sexual harassment, given the lack of specific legislation on this issue. It is hereby noted that the legislation was enacted after full 15 years. It means that there was legislative silence on the concerned issue.
- Why does Judiciary step in when legislative is silent?
Judiciary step in when the law is ambiguous or silent so that the public interest is served which is the core of Indian Democratic framework and to ensure the principles of justice, fairness and impartiality. It is necessary to prevent injustice to the people, adapting to the changing societal needs and covering broader societal implications. This maintains social order which is essential for a society as it is a continuous process, and ensures people do not lose faith in the system.
- What are the risks of judicial overreach?
Judicial overreach can disturb the principle of separation of powers and balance of powers and can open doors of political intervention in judiciary, undermining judiciary independence and its core principles. So a balanced approach is preferred to be adopted by the judges where judicial interpretation is exercised with restraint to avoid overreach and maintain respect for legislative supremacy.
- Can judicial interpretation create binding law?
In India, judicial interpretation, particularly by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, can create binding laws through the doctrine of precedent. Article 141 states that “the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” Only the “ratio decidendi” (the core legal reasoning behind a Supreme Court decision) is considered binding, not mere observations or “obiter dicta” made in the judgment. However, there is the distinction between judicial precedent and legislative authority. Judicial precedent is one of the sources of law in India as it follows common law system. Its purpose is to interpret and apply the law. Laws which are created by created by a legislature, such as a parliament or other deliberative assembly, are covered under Legislative authority. It Creates laws that determine the distribution of power in a government.
References:
- <https://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/event/TheIndianJudicialSystem_SSDhavan.pdf>
- <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-four-phases-of-constitutional-interpretation/article30653706.ece>
- <https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45153/2#:~:text=Early%20Years:%20Natural%20Law%20and%20Formalism,-Legal%20thinking%20in&text=I%20cannot%20join%20the%20Court’s,conceptions%20of%20the%20judicial%20power).&text=U.%20L.,to%20our%20view.%E2%80%9D).&text=(1990)%20(defining%20natural%20law,or%20other%20state%20organs%E2%80%9D).&text=not%20arise%20and%20the%20rules,need%20no%20discussion.%E2%80%9D).&text=(2000).>
- <https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/judicial-activism-restraint-overreach#:~:text=There%20was%20rampant%20corruption%20in,the%20various%20wrongs%20in%20society.>
- Saregama (India) Ltd. v. Next Radio Ltd., (2022) 1 SCC 701
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 791
- Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645
- Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (Sabarimala Temple-5J.) v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
- Jaya Thakur v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SCC 276
- Ashok Ambu Parmar v. Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City, 1986 SCC OnLine Guj 111
- Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 2 SCC 670
- Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651
- Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 SCC 683