Judicial Review and Judicial Activism:
- Judicial review is a critical aspect of India’s constitutional structure, inferred from Article 13, even though not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
- It ensures that laws violating the constitution are void and is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Judicial activism and judicial review are two sides of the same coin, with activism stepping in during extreme cases for safeguarding rights.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)
Judicial Powers and Accountability:
- Critics argue that recent Supreme Court judgments show a rise in judicial powers without accountability.
- Critics question the motives behind certain decisions, particularly with powers under Article 142, which allows the court to ensure “complete justice.”
- However, such powers have been used judiciously in landmark cases like the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment and mob lynching guidelines, supporting democracy and public welfare.
Opposition’s Criticism of Judicial Review:
- Judicial review has faced criticism from those in power, as unelected judges quashing laws of elected governments .
- However, most constitutional scholars argue that judicial review, especially on matters related to fundamental rights or federalism, is necessary for upholding constitutional supremacy.
Supreme Court’s Relationship with Government:
- Despite occasional setbacks for the government, like the NJAC ruling and the electoral bond scheme, the Supreme Court has mostly upheld government decisions during the Modi era.
- The court’s actions on issues like demonetization, same-sex marriage, and the Citizenship Amendment Act reflect its alignment with the executive in many cases.
The Role of Courts in Democracy:
- The judiciary’s role is not to replace the legislature but to ensure the constitution is upheld and people’s rights are protected.
- Fair criticism of judges is welcome, but attributing motives or blaming them for violations of the separation of powers is not justified.
Judiciary’s Responsibility and Limits:
- Judiciary should not take over governance but should act when there is a violation of constitutional rights or when governance fails to deliver justice.
- Article 142 has not been used recklessly; the court has remained cautious in its interventions, ensuring democracy and constitutional integrity are preserved.
Governors and Constitutional Oversight:
- Judicial oversight has prevented unelected Governors from assuming unconstitutional powers.
- The court’s intervention in the Tamil Nadu case, where it set timelines for Governor actions, reflects its responsibility in upholding democratic functioning, without amending the constitution.
- The judiciary’s role is to keep all government organs within constitutional limits.
Conclusion:
- Judicial review is an essential mechanism to preserve democracy, constitutional supremacy, and citizens’ rights.
- While the judiciary must not overstep its bounds, its interventions are sometimes necessary to ensure that the constitutional structure is upheld, especially in exceptional cases of misuse of power by the executive or legislature.
