Abstract
This article explores the intricate relationship between the judiciary and the legislature in India, focusing on the concept of judicial review and its implications on Indian politics. Judicial review, a cornerstone of constitutional law, empowers the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws or actions by the executive and legislative branches that are inconsistent with constitutional provisions. The article delves into the historical development of judicial review in India, key case laws that have shaped its application, and the ongoing debate regarding the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature.
Introduction
Judicial review is a vital mechanism in maintaining the checks and balances within the Indian political system. This doctrine, derived from the principle of separation of powers, ensures that no branch of government exceeds its constitutionally prescribed limits. The Indian Constitution, influenced by various democratic frameworks worldwide, incorporates judicial review as a means to uphold the rule of law and protect fundamental rights.
Historical Development of Judicial Review in India
The concept of judicial review in India has its roots in colonial legal traditions and the influence of common law. The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, explicitly provides for judicial review under Articles 13, 32, 136, 226, and 227. The judiciary’s power to review laws was affirmed in several landmark cases, which solidified its role as the guardian of the Constitution.
Early Influences
The Government of India Act 1935 and various Privy Council decisions laid the groundwork for judicial review in pre-independence India. The framers of the Indian Constitution, drawing inspiration from the U.S. Constitution and other democratic systems, enshrined this principle to ensure a robust mechanism for constitutional interpretation and protection of individual rights.
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 13: Declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights shall be void.
- Article 32: Provides the right to constitutional remedies, allowing individuals to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Article 136: Grants the Supreme Court special leave to appeal against any judgment or order.
- Article 226 and 227: Empower High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of rights and to supervise subordinate courts.
Landmark Case Laws
Several landmark judgments have shaped the landscape of judicial review in India, establishing precedents and clarifying the extent of judicial powers.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
In this case, the Supreme Court initially adopted a narrow interpretation of fundamental rights, emphasizing procedural due process over substantive due process. The judgment, however, laid the foundation for future expansions of judicial review.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This landmark case established the “basic structure” doctrine, asserting that Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that while the Constitution can be amended, its fundamental framework must remain intact. This judgment significantly enhanced the power of judicial review, allowing the judiciary to invalidate constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
The Minerva Mills case reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine, emphasizing the importance of judicial review as a part of the basic structure. The Court struck down clauses of the 42nd Amendment that sought to curtail judicial review and the power of the judiciary.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
In this case, the Supreme Court outlined the scope of judicial review concerning the President’s rule under Article 356. The judgment emphasized that the use of Article 356 is subject to judicial scrutiny, ensuring that it is not misused for political purposes.
Recent Developments
The scope and applicability of judicial review continue to evolve with recent judgments addressing issues like the constitutionality of economic policies, the protection of civil liberties, and the interpretation of socio-economic rights.
The Ongoing Debate: Balance of Power
The dynamic between the judiciary and the legislature in India is often contentious, with debates focusing on judicial activism versus judicial restraint. Critics argue that excessive judicial activism encroaches upon the domain of the legislature, undermining the democratic process. Proponents contend that judicial activism is necessary to protect fundamental rights and uphold the rule of law, especially in the face of legislative or executive overreach.
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens and ensuring justice. It involves the judiciary stepping in to address issues when the legislature or executive fails to act. This approach has been instrumental in landmark cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of legislative action.
Judicial Restraint
Judicial restraint advocates for a more conservative approach, where the judiciary defers to the legislature and executive unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles. This perspective emphasizes respect for the separation of powers and acknowledges the primary role of elected representatives in policymaking.
Case Studies
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015)
The NJAC case is a recent example of the judiciary asserting its authority to maintain the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, which sought to change the process of appointing judges. The Court held that these changes threatened judicial independence, a basic feature of the Constitution.
Aadhaar Case (2018)
In the Aadhaar judgment, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme and its implications on privacy rights. The Court upheld the scheme’s validity but imposed restrictions to protect individual privacy, demonstrating a balanced approach to judicial review.
Conclusion
Judicial review remains a fundamental aspect of India’s constitutional framework, ensuring that the legislature and executive act within the bounds of the Constitution. While the judiciary’s role is crucial in protecting fundamental rights and maintaining the rule of law, it must also balance its actions to respect the domain of other branches of government. The proceeding argumentation between judicial activism and judicial constraint highlights the developing character of judicial re-examination in India’s popular layout.
FAQs
- What’s judicial review?
Judicial review is the command of the judicatory to clarify the Constitution and abolish statutes or address by the administrant and legislative limbs that are incompatible with native bread.
- Which compositions of the Indian Constitution give for judicial review?
Judicial review is explicitly delivered under Articles 13, 32, 136, 226, and 227 of the Indian Constitution.
- What is the introductory building doctrine?
The introductory structure doctrine, demonstrated in the Kesavananda Bharati case, asserts that Parliament cannot improve the basic structure or introductory structure of the Constitution.
- How does judicial review safeguard introductory rights?
Judicial review allows the bar to invalidate laws or conduct that violate basic rights, ensuring that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are upheld.
- What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?
Judicial activism refers to the visionary part of the bar in addressing outcomes and safeguarding rights, while judicial constraint lawyers for a conservative approach, postponing to the assembly and superintendent unless there’s a clear natural violation.
Author name: Nischal Singh, A student of Institute of Law and Research, Faridabad.
