Why in the News?

A series of judgments in recent times has had several parties questioning the powers and motives of the Supreme Court.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Judicial Review (Background, Article 142, Landmark Judgements, Separation of Powers, etc.)

Introduction

• The Supreme Court of India, long seen as the guardian of constitutional morality and citizen rights, has lately found itself at the centre of a national debate.
• Concerns are growing over whether recent judicial decisions reflect an era of “judicial despotism” or are simply the judiciary fulfilling its role amidst increasingly complex socio-political conditions.

The Foundations of Judicial Review

• Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the term “judicial review,” its spirit is embedded in Article 13. It empowers constitutional courts to invalidate laws that contradict fundamental rights.
• Articles 32 and 226 further cement the judiciary’s role in safeguarding rights, reinforcing that judicial review is an essential component of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• The concept has evolved with doctrines like Public Interest Litigation and locus standi, once meant to extend access to justice, now often accused of expanding judicial reach into legislative and executive domains.

Article 142 and the “Complete Justice” Debate

• Article 142 grants the Supreme Court powers to deliver “complete justice,” used in landmark cases such as Babri Masjid, mob lynching guidelines, and irretrievable marriage breakdowns.
• Critics argue this provision allows excessive discretion, while defenders see it as a necessary instrument for justice in exceptional circumstances.
• The Vice President’s comparison of Article 142 to a “nuclear missile” sparked backlash, with legal scholars asserting that this provision, when judiciously applied, upholds the spirit of the Constitution.

Landmark Judgments and Public Perception

• Several Supreme Court rulings have drawn mixed reactions, such as:
  • Upholding demonetization,
  • Refusing to recognize same-sex marriages,
  • Approving the Rafale deal,
  • Validating NRC in Assam,
  • Not intervening in the Pegasus surveillance case, and
  • Delay in hearing petitions on CAA and EVMs.
• The court has occasionally countered the government’s stance, notably by striking down the Electoral Bond Scheme and the NJAC Act.
• The recent Tamil Nadu Governor case illustrated how the court can uphold federalism and democratic accountability.

Democracy, Separation of Powers, and Judicial Boundaries

• Elected leaders often oppose judicial review while in power but embrace it in opposition.
• This contradiction underscores an enduring tension between Parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy.
• Jawaharlal Nehru once warned against the judiciary acting as a “third chamber,” while simultaneously acknowledging its role in correcting legislative missteps.
• Critics argue that unelected judges overturning laws passed by elected representatives is anti-democratic, but scholars maintain that judicial review is indispensable for protecting federal structure, minority rights, and constitutional values.

Counter-arguments to the “Despotism” Charge

• The charge of judicial despotism lacks robust backing when measured against the court’s restrained use of its powers.
• The judiciary has often leaned towards the executive, not against it. Its interventions have been issue-based and grounded in constitutional mandates.
• Instances where the court has pushed boundaries, such as in the Governor's case, were aimed at correcting executive inaction, not seizing power.

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary remains a crucial bulwark against democratic erosion and executive excesses. While concerns about judicial overreach are valid and necessary in a democracy, the current discourse must differentiate between despotism and judicial duty.

The judiciary must stay within its constitutional bounds, but it must also not shy away from upholding justice and accountability.