Context:
India’s democracy thrives on the delicate balance between the three pillars of governance — Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Amidst evolving challenges, the Supreme Court’s role under judicial review and Article 142 has stirred nationwide debate. Here’s an analytical breakdown.
Judicial Review: Constitutional Mandate
- Not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but implied via Article 13, which invalidates laws contravening fundamental rights.
- Supported by Article 226 (High Courts) and Article 32 (Supreme Court) for rights enforcement.
- Forms part of the basic structure doctrine—ensuring rule of law and constitutional supremacy.
Judicial Activism vs Judicial Review
- Judicial review: Evaluates constitutionality of laws.
- Judicial activism: Proactive role by judiciary in matters where legislative/executive gaps are evident.
- Both are intertwined yet distinct, with activism ideally reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
- Evolved post-Emergency to restore legitimacy and empower marginalized voices.
- Enabled the judiciary to act on behalf of the voiceless, reinforcing rights of prisoners, workers, and victims of custodial violence.
Article 142: Power for Complete Justice
- Allows Supreme Court to go beyond statutory limitations to ensure justice.
- Criticized as a “nuclear missile” but used judiciously in:
- Babri Masjid verdict
- Mob lynching guidelines
- Irretrievable marriage breakdowns
- Judicial restraint is advocated in its use to preserve institutional integrity.
Judicial Accountability and Political Perceptions
- Criticism: Supreme Court perceived as pro-government on:
- Demonetisation, Article 370, Rafale deal, NRC, CAA, EVMs.
- Major pushback: Only a few key rulings went against government positions (e.g., Electoral Bonds, NJAC, Arunachal Pradesh President’s Rule).
- Courts generally defer to elected government, striking down laws only when constitutionally untenable.
The Role of Judges Amid Political and Religious Sensitivities
- Judiciary often prefers peace over conflict, especially in volatile matters like:
- Article 370
- Babri Masjid
- Places of Worship Act
- Allegations of activism must be balanced against judicial prudence and social harmony.
Democracy vs Judiciary
- Democracy cannot override constitutional limits.
- Judicial review is not anti-democratic—it protects minority rights and federal values.
- The President and Governors, too, are subject to constitutional discipline.
Landmark Judicial Observations
- Krishna Iyer (1981): Constitutional powers must not be misused or driven by vanity.
- Qaiser e Hind (2001): Presidential assent is a constitutional act, not a formality.
- 2025 Tamil Nadu Verdict: Timelines suggested by SC do not amend the Constitution but ensure reasonable constitutional functioning.
Separation of Powers and Respectful Criticism
- All organs must operate within constitutional confines.
- Vice-President’s comments on judiciary undermine constitutional ethos; criticism must be fair, not disparaging.
- Current CJI has taken a cautious path, respecting religious and political sensitivities.
Balancing Justice with Restraint
The Indian judiciary, though unelected, acts as the guardian of the Constitution. Judicial review, far from being undemocratic, is the bulwark against executive overreach. Article 142, while potent, must be exercised with wisdom and restraint to maintain the court’s credibility and constitutional balance.
