The Role of the Judiciary: Navigating the Boundaries of Constitutional Mandates
In recent years, India has seen its constitutional courts becoming venues for public interest litigation that often touches on tradition, culture, and societal norms. J Sai Deepak, in his recent piece, stresses the importance of the judiciary understanding and respecting its constitutional limits, primarily emphasizing the doctrine of separation of powers. According to him, while the judiciary has the power of judicial review, it must not overreach into the domains of the legislature and executive, except in cases of clear unconstitutionality.
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers
The doctrine of separation of powers is fundamental to India's constitutional framework. This doctrine ensures that the legislature, executive, and judiciary operate within their respective domains without undue interference from one another. The judiciary’s power of review is crucial but should not be confused with the power of supervision. This distinction is essential to preserve the institutional independence and competence of the other branches of government.
Judicial Review vs. Judicial Supervision
Judicial review allows courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. However, this power is not unlimited. Courts should intervene only when an action clearly violates the Constitution. Deepak argues that the judiciary must refrain from acting as societal arbiters or policy makers, roles that rightly belong to the elected representatives. The judiciary should not replace the will of the majority with judicial paternalism, as this undermines democratic principles.
The Judiciary's Limited Role in Policy Making
Policy issues often require domain expertise and a nuanced understanding of societal needs, which are best handled by the legislature and executive. The judiciary’s involvement should be limited to instances of a clear legal vacuum or unconstitutionality. A notable example is the Supreme Court’s issuance of the Vishakha guidelines on sexual harassment, which served as a temporary measure until the legislature enacted a comprehensive law.
Respecting Democratic Processes
Deepak emphasizes that the judiciary must respect the process of democratic decision-making, even when it disagrees with the policies resulting from it. Courts should encourage public interest litigants and civil society groups to engage with legislative and societal processes rather than seeking judicial intervention for every grievance. This approach upholds the principles of participative democracy and allows society to learn and evolve through trial and error.
The Impact of Judicial Opinions
While the judiciary can express its views on policy matters, it must do so cautiously to avoid unduly influencing public opinion or pressuring the other branches of government. The Constitution permits judicial advisory roles in limited circumstances, and these boundaries should be respected to maintain the balance of power.
Conclusion
J Sai Deepak's perspective on the judiciary's role underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional mandates and respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The judiciary must exercise restraint, intervening only in cases of clear unconstitutionality while allowing the legislature and executive to perform their roles. This approach not only preserves the sanctity of democratic processes but also ensures that societal and policy reforms are driven by the people's elected representatives.
JOIN US FOR MORE UPDATES:-
WHATSAPP CHANNEL -
https://chat.whatsapp.com/KFqEQu2XzFa8RvSg42N9rM
TELEGRAM CHANNEL - https://t.me/learnwithsakshi03
Linkedin account -
Instagram -
https://www.instagram.com/_sakshinchaos_?igsh=MTRobXA5eG9jY3AzMw%3D%3D&utm_source=qr
FOR ANY QUERY, EMAIL US ON - hustlinglearning@gmail.com
Post a Comment