Evolving Dimensions of Judiciary in India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.7.3Abstract
Law, being a mode of social engineering, cannot be viewed in isolation. The vitality of law as a living organism is primarily dependent on the judge’s ability to interpret the same. From its nascent stage, the apex court in India has struggled with the issue of striking an equilibrium between economic and social reform programmes on the one hand and establishing the credibility of India by fostering respect for rule of law, on the other. This article deals with the changing dimensions of the Indian judiciary in playing a fundamental role in shaping the constitutional jurisprudence. The researcher seeks to examine the varying trends of the Supreme Court of India from the 1950’s to 1970’s, the 1980’s in the light of the introduction of Public Interest Litigation, the post 1990’s with the approach to liberalization and finally, the time period from 2000, wherein the judiciary has taken up an activist role. Further, the judicial reforms initiated to enhance administration, including the introduction of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the constitution of Lok Adalats to amicably settle and compromise the disputes pending in the courts, the providing of free and competent legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of the society in consonance with Article 39A of the Constitution, the establishment of specialized tribunals, both administrative and internal (for instance Administrative Tribunals and the Armed Forces Tribunal) as well as tribunals dealing with the disputes arising out of or associated with economic activities such as Competition Appellate Tribunal, Securities Appellate Tribunal etc. have been highlighted. However, the researcher urges that the need of the day is to strive towards better quality of government and enhanced administration and that the judiciary has an essential role to play in achieving that goal. In conclusion, it is stated that unless people’s mental barriers towards reforms are broken, attempts of external remedies are bound to fail.References
Lee W. Potts, Law as a Tool of Social Engineering: The Case of the Republic of South Africa, 5 BOSTON INTL. & COMP. LAW REV. 121 (1982).
K. G. Balakrishnan, Judicial Activism and the Enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights - The Indian Experience, Address Delivered at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Lecture, (Jun. 13, 2009), http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/speeches/speeches_2009/br_ambedkar_lecture_-_london_june_2009.pdf.
Id.
(Although the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’’ were inserted by the 42nd amendment in 1976, there are no doubts that the Constitution was both socialist and secular from the very beginning). See, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Preamble.
Id.
(The social revolution meant, ‘to get (India) out of the medievalism based on birth, religion, custom, and community and reconstruct her social structure on modern foundations of law, individual merit and social education’). See, GRANVILLE AUSTIN, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: CORNERSTONE OF A NATION 27 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, UK, 1966).
See, Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 458 (upholding the validity of the first amendment to the Constitution that shielded land acquisition laws from legal challenge under Part III of the Constitution.) However, in later judgments starting with State of West Bengal v. Bella Banerjee, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 170, the Court ruled that the meaning of ‘compensation’ in Art. 31(2) meant just equivalent for the property acquired, making meaningful land reform impossible. This in turn led to Parliament’s adoption of the undesirable practice of shielding laws from constitutional challenge by placing them in the Ninth Schedule added to the Constitution by Parliament through the Constitutional (1st Amendment) Act, 1951.
Pritam Kumar Ghosh, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India, 1 GJLS 77 (2013).
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973 (4) S.C.C. 225.
Arvind P. Datar, The Case That Saved Indian Democracy, The Hindu, (Apr. 24, 2013), http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-case-that-saved-indian-democracy/article4647800.ece.
SARBANI SEN, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IN INDIA: IMPLICATIONS FOR LAW AND DEVELOPMENT, 8 (Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group, 2002).
Anirudh Krishnan, Where Should the Judiciary Draw the Line? The Hindu, (Apr. 26, 2014), http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/where-should-the-judiciary-draw-the-line/article5948452.ece.
Sanjay Satyanarayan Bang, Judicial Review of Legislative Action: A Tool to Balance the Supremacy of the Constitution, Address Before the XIV Annual International Seminar on “Economics, Politics, and Civil Society” (Jan. 2, 2013).
K.G. Balakrishnan, Judicial Activism under the Indian Constitution, Address Delivered at Trinity College, Dublin (Oct. 14, 2009).
P.N. Bhagwati & C.J. Dias, The Judiciary in India: A Hunger and Thirst for Justice, 5 NUJS L. REV. 171 (2012).
Jamie Cassels, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation in India: Attempting the Impossible?, 37 AM. J. COMP. L. 495 (1989).
Romi Jain, The Indian Supreme Court as Environmental Activist, THE DIPLOMAT, (Jan. 24, 2014), http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/the-indian-supreme-court-as-environmental-activist/.
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India and Ors., (1981) 1 S.C.C. 568.
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, Shriram Food and Fertilizer case, Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1985) 4 S.C.C. 677; See also Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 S.C.C. 746; D.K. Basu v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 416.
N.R. Madhava Menon, Law and Justice: A Look at the Role and Performance of Indian Judiciary, Address delivered at Berkeley Seminar Series on Law and Democracy (Sep. 2008) http://indiandemocracy08.berkeley.edu/docs/Menon-LawANDJustice-ALook%20.pdf.
Id.
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, I.L.O., REPORT VI: THE PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE ENTERPRISES, (96th Sess. 2007).
Lars Feld & Stefan Voigt, Economic Growth and Judicial Independence: Cross-Country Evidence Using a New Set of Indicators, 19(3) EUR. J. POL. ECON. 497 (2003).
Id.
Id.
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1455.
Akhil Bharatiya Shoshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway), A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 298.
S.P. Gupta, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149.
M.C. Mehta v Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 965.
M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath (1998) 1 S.C.C. 388.
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand and Ors,1980 A.I.R. 1622, 1981 S.C.R. (1) 97.
M.C. Mehta v Union of India,1988 A.I.R. 1115, 1988 S.C.R. (2) 530.
Id.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, 1989 A.I.R. 594 1989 S.C.C. Supl. (1) 537 JT 1988 (4) 710 1988 S.C.A.L.E. (2) 1574.
Sheela Barse, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 378.
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241.
Vineet Narain and Ors v. Union of India & Anr., 1996 S.C.C. (2) 199.
Ram Jethmalani, (2011) 8 S.C.C. 1.
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2012) 10 S.C.C.
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. v. Union of India and Anr., (2012) 6 S.C.C. 613.
Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja (2012) 9 S.C.C. 257.
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2012) 7 S.C.C. 407.
Union of India v. A.R. Narayanan, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23086/2011.
Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. (2011) 5 S.C.C. 29.
Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 S.C.C. 10.
Novartis A.G. v. Union of India and Ors., (2013) 6 S.C.C. 1.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986) 2 S.C.C. 176; See also Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v.Union of India (1996) 3 S.C.C. 212; Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647; M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 S.C.C 388; S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 87; M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 353; M.C. Mehta (Calcutta Tanneries’ Matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 2 S.C.C. 411; M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of India (1997) 3 S.C.C. 715; Bittu Sehgal v. Union of India, (2001) 9 S.C.C. 181 and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 S.C.C. 356.
Lily Thomas, (2013) 7 S.C.C. 653.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. v. Union of India, 2013 (12) S.C.A.L.E. 165.
Y.K. Sabharwal, Role of Judiciary in Good Governance, Address Delivered at Barrister B. M. Patnaik Memorial Lecture (Nov. 19, 2006).
Kishor Talukdar, eCourts - The Renaissance in Indian Judiciary, http://kamrupjudiciary.gov.in/e- journal.htm (last visited on Mar. 22, 2015).
National Legal Services Authority India, http://nalsa.gov.in/schemes.html (last visited on Mar. 22, 2015).
J.S. Bisht, Lok Adalat: A Mechanism of Alternate Dispute Resolution, 31 IBR 179 (2004).
G. Mallikarjun, Legal Aid in India and the Judicial Contribution, Universities, Intellectual Property Rights and Spinoffs: A Critical Evaluation 235 (2013), available at http://www.commonlii.org/in/journals/NALSARLawRw/2013/13.pdf
Note: Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 owes its origin to Article 323-A of the Constitution.
Note: The Armed Forces Tribunal Act 2007, was passed by the Parliament and led to the formation of AFT with the power provided for the adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolments and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, The Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950.
K. Ramakrishnan, Scope of Alternate Dispute Resolution in India, 1 JV (2005).
Jyoti Basu, India and the Challenges of the Twenty First Century, Address Delivered at the 30th Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture (Nov. 13, 1998), jyotibasu.net/?q=node/18.
Law Commission of India, Reforms in the Judiciary - Some Suggestions, Report No. 230 (2009).
