.webp)
There are mixed opinions regarding the Indian judicial system. Some people see it as a beacon of hope, actively working to correct shortcomings and protect human rights. They believe that the judiciary is above any powerful individual or government. On the other hand, there are concerns about inefficiency and corruption in the courts. Delayed trials and unresolved disputes erode public trust in the legal system.
To address these issues, experts propose reforms like computerization, better case management, and alternative dispute resolution methods like lok adalats. These reforms have shown promising results in reducing the backlog of cases in the past. The significance of a trustworthy and efficient judiciary for a diverse and rapidly developing country like India.
To understand the role of the courts in India’s democracy, it’s important to understand the historical context during British rule and how the judiciary interacts with other branches of government in independent India. It also discusses the concept of public interest litigation, which is a form of judicial activism aimed at addressing government shortcomings. This form of activism has gained momentum in recent times.
Problematic Rule of Law in a Historical Perspective
There are various challenges faced by the judiciary in developing countries like India, especially during the colonial period. These challenges include poverty, lack of education, and social exclusion, which limit people’s access to the legal system. Additionally, poor infrastructure makes it difficult for the judiciary to reach rural areas.
During the British colonial rule in India, the judicial system had its problems. The courts were often used to harass people rather than providing fair resolutions to disputes. Corruption was widespread, and legal cases would drag on for long periods, creating opportunities for bribery. Enforcement of court rulings was not reliable.
Some historians argue that the inefficiency of the judicial system during colonial rule was a result of the colonial power’s approach. The East India Company did not establish a strong enough judicial infrastructure to enforce its rulings effectively. The focus was more on controlling the country than introducing fair and liberal standards of rule of law. There were conflicts between the economic interests of the British, who wanted market-friendly legislation, and their political interests in maintaining a system of personal law.
Even in the 19th century, efforts to improve the legal system were slow and inadequate. The decisions made by the colonial power were influenced by complex power arrangements and informal alliances involving the colonial bureaucracy, local landlords, urban traders, and later, local industrialists.
The Courts and the Political System
After gaining independence from British rule, At first there was hope that the rule of law and equal rights would be established, but over time, disillusionment set in due to certain challenges.
Initially, some believed that the concept of the rule of law might be foreign to Indian tradition, but historical figures like Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, and Ambedkar played significant roles in using constitutional law to fight for independence. The Indian legal system is now considered an indigenous institution and not just a leftover from colonial times.
However, the Indian constitution does have some ambiguities. It protects traditional social structures and privileges while aiming for societal transformation. Reforms intended to help the oppressed often face implementation challenges, and there is still a significant focus on caste despite its official abolition.
There is a perception of lawlessness, especially among political leaders and civil servants, who are not expected to follow rules strictly. This leads to doubts about the fairness and objectivity of court procedures.
Despite these challenges, the Indian judiciary is highly respected and seen as independent and less affected by corruption. There has been a strong opposition to the government, even during the time of Jawaharlal Nehru, who had disagreements with the Supreme Court over land reform.
The relationship between the Indian government and the judiciary, especially during the time of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was complicated. After India gained independence, there were conflicts between the government and the Supreme Court over issues like nationalization of banks and abolishing privileges of the nobility. Indira Gandhi argued that the government should prioritize socialist policies, while the Supreme Court emphasized the protection of individual rights.
During her time in power, Indira Gandhi passed the 42nd Amendment, which limited the power of the judiciary and prioritized government control. However, after her government was defeated, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its duty to uphold the constitution and protect the basic principles of the country.
The judiciary is often seen as a check against government lawlessness, and some consider judicial activism as a response to government misbehavior. However, there are also criticisms of judicial activism, with some arguing that judges overstep their boundaries.
Despite some criticisms, the Indian judiciary is generally respected and considered independent, but there are concerns about corruption and the influence of retired judges appointed to various commissions by the government.
Overall, the passage discusses the complex relationship between the Indian government and the judiciary, highlighting the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens.
Public Interest Litigation
Public interest litigation (PIL) is when people who are not directly affected by a problem or grievance file legal petitions on behalf of the public’s interest. This allows social workers, journalists, and politically aware individuals to raise important issues that affect society as a whole. PIL became more common in India in the 1980s, as the middle class became aware of the importance of the rule of law and human rights.
The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, started taking an active role in addressing these issues. They even accepted postcards as writ petitions if they were about fundamental rights violations. PIL has been used to address various issues such as human rights abuses, environmental concerns, corruption, and social problems like domestic violence and dowry deaths.
However, PIL also faces challenges. One major issue is the enforcement of court orders, as the government may not always comply. Moreover, access to the courts is limited for many disadvantaged people due to poverty, illiteracy, and language barriers. The slow and bureaucratic nature of the judicial system also hampers the effectiveness of PIL.
While some believe PIL has brought positive changes, others criticize it for being ineffective and limited in its impact. Despite its shortcomings, PIL has become an essential platform for civil society to raise their concerns and put pressure on the government to address issues. Although it may not always lead to immediate solutions, PIL plays a role in pushing for accountability and transparency in governance.
