The Indian Supreme Court’s main job is to interpret and enforce the Constitution of India, which is a very long and important document that sets out the rules and principles for running the country. The Constitution has been amended many times since it was first adopted in 1950 and has around 448 articles and 25 schedules.
The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in maintaining India’s democratic institutions and upholding the rule of law. Its justices, who now number twenty-six, have established the Court’s independence in matters of judicial appointments and transfers. They have also allowed extensive judicial review of the government’s actions and even declared some constitutional amendments unconstitutional.
One of the Court’s most important innovations has been the introduction of Public-Interest Litigation (PIL). In PIL cases, anyone can approach the Court to seek justice for an issue without being directly affected.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism that allows individuals or organizations to approach the courts seeking justice for public causes and the enforcement of public rights. Unlike traditional litigation, PIL is not filed by aggrieved parties but by social activists, NGOs, or public-spirited individuals acting on behalf of marginalized and vulnerable groups. The concept of PIL emerged in India during the 1970s as a means to provide access to justice for the disadvantaged and to protect the rule of law.
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution, derived from the doctrine propounded by political philosopher Montesquieu. It divides the government into three branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, each with distinct powers and functions, acting as a system of checks and balances on one another to prevent abuse of authority. However Judiciary is taking over. Lets discuss it further:
Evolution of PIL in India:
PIL began as a way to enable the judiciary to take cognizance of public grievances and to promote social justice. Over the years, the Indian judiciary has been instrumental in shaping the scope and application of PIL. The expansion of PIL has allowed the courts to intervene in matters ranging from environmental protection to corruption, healthcare, education, and more.
In India, the exercise of judicial power has influenced the character of federalism. Court decisions have affected the relationship between the central government and state governments. The character of judicial review can shape the nature and scope of federalism.
Similarly, the idea of separation of powers may not accurately describe how courts actually work. Courts often engage in policy-making and administrative functions, blurring the traditional distinction between legislatures and courts. The concept of “independence” of each branch of government is a political resource deployed in specific contexts.
Impact on Separation of Powers:
Expanding Judicial Activism: PIL has expanded the role of the judiciary beyond traditional bounds, leading to a more active and interventionist approach. Some argue that this shift has blurred the lines of separation of powers as the judiciary, in its quest to protect the interests of the marginalized, occasionally encroaches on the functions of the executive and legislature.
Addressing Executive and Legislative Inaction: One of the primary justifications for PIL is that it fills the void when the executive and legislature fail to act on pressing issues. Proponents argue that the judiciary, through PIL, ensures that constitutional rights are protected and that the government remains accountable to its citizens.
Curbing Executive Excesses: PIL has also been used to check executive actions that violate fundamental rights or harm public interest. By acting as a check on the executive branch, PIL strengthens the system of checks and balances inherent in the separation of powers.
The Legitimacy of Judicial Intervention
The passage talks about the increasing role of judges in making important decisions in countries with democracies, including India. It explains that over the years, unelected bodies like courts have gained significant authority in matters related to waste management, clean air, education, property rights, religious freedom, and various administrative issues.
The Supreme Court of India has positioned itself as the final authority on the Constitution, even reviewing amendments made by the elected Parliament. The weak political process in India has allowed for judicial activism, where judges take up the responsibility of safeguarding democratic principles. Sometimes, the executive branch invites the judiciary to intervene in making crucial decisions, especially when they are difficult or unpopular.
It discusses two main questions about judicial activism: Is it legitimate? And is it effective? People may be suspicious of judges exercising broad powers without much accountability, as they are not elected like politicians. However, some appreciate an assertive judiciary that can protect rights, hold politicians accountable, and make decisions for the public good.
One argument for judicial activism is that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values when politicians fail to do so. Judges can protect democratic rights and advance the public interest, making them a shield and a sword for democracy. However, there are concerns that judges might not always protect liberties, and their decisions may not always align with the interests of the public.
The passage also mentions that while some court interventions have had positive outcomes, there is not enough concrete data to determine the overall effectiveness of judicial activism. Courts may declare rights, but their decisions may not always lead to practical results or be cost-effective.
Moreover, the judiciary itself has its problems, with the civil-justice system facing massive case backlogs and a lack of clear principles in decision-making. The passage suggests that courts alone cannot bring significant social change and that a society must have a spirit of moderation and responsibility to maintain its democracy.
Arguments for the Erosion of Separation of Powers:
Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the judiciary, through PIL, has at times overstepped its role and interfered in policy matters that should be the domain of the executive or legislature. This is seen as undermining the principle of separation of powers and leading to judicial activism that is beyond the Constitution’s intent.
Lack of Accountability: Since PIL is often initiated by parties without any direct interest, there are concerns about the lack of accountability of petitioners, which can lead to frivolous or politically motivated litigations that disrupt the functioning of the other branches of government.
Executive Paralysis: Some critics argue that the aggressive judicial intervention through PILs may lead to a state of executive paralysis, with the government becoming hesitant to take decisions out of fear of legal challenges.
