Table of Contents:
- Explain the concept of Judicial Activism and evaluate its impact on the relationship of the Executive and Judiciary in India. ( UPPSC 2020)
- The Judicial systems in India and the UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices. ( UPSC 2020)
- Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of a large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities. ( UPSC 2020)
- " Every matter of Public Interest can not be a matter of Public Interest Litigation." Evaluate. ( UPPSC 2020)
Question.
Explain the concept of Judicial Activism and evaluate its impact on the relationship of the Executive and Judiciary in India.
( UPPSC Mains General Studies-II/GS-2 2019)
Answer.
Judicial activism refers to the active role of the Judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens.
Judicial activism involves the judiciary actively engaging in shaping public policy and addressing societal issues, often by expanding constitutional rights and protections.
Judicial activism is seen as an approach where judges take an active role in promoting justice, equality, and fundamental rights, even if it requires them to challenge the actions of the legislative or executive branches of government.
In the context of India, the impact of judicial activism on the relationship between the executive and judiciary has been significant. The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a proactive role in addressing social and political issues. This has resulted in several landmark judgments that have had far-reaching implications.
One of the positive impacts of judicial activism has been the protection and promotion of fundamental rights. The judiciary has been instrumental in expanding the interpretation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. For example, through activism, the court has recognized the right to privacy, LGBT rights, the right to education, and the right to livelihood as integral components of the right to life and personal liberty. These decisions have been crucial in advancing social justice and individual freedoms in the country.
Additionally, judicial activism has acted as a check on executive power. It has ensured that the government remains accountable and follows constitutional principles. The judiciary has intervened in cases of executive excesses, corruption, and human rights violations, thereby safeguarding the rights of citizens and upholding the rule of law. This has enhanced public confidence in the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional values.
However, there are also concerns associated with judicial activism. Critics argue that the judiciary, by actively shaping public policy, sometimes encroaches upon the domain of the legislative and executive branches. They argue that judicial activism may undermine the principle of separation of powers and disrupt the delicate balance of powers enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
In conclusion, judicial activism in India has had a significant impact on the relationship between the executive and judiciary. While it has played a crucial role in protecting fundamental rights, promoting social justice, and checking executive excesses, there are concerns about its potential encroachment on the powers of other branches of government. Striking a balance between judicial activism and respecting the separation of powers is essential to ensure effective governance and the preservation of constitutional principles.
Question.
The Judicial systems in India and the UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices.
( UPSC Mains General Studies-II/GS-2 2020)
Answer.
The Judicial systems in India and the UK work in similar ways, however, there are many divergences in working also. Some key points of convergence and divergence between the judicial systems of India and the United Kingdom are as follows:
Highlight of the Key points of Convergence of Judicial systems in India and the UK:
Common Law Tradition:
Both India and the UK follow the common law tradition, which means that judicial decisions and precedents decisions play a significant role in shaping the law.
Hierarchy of Courts:
Both countries have a hierarchical system of courts, with the Supreme Court serving as the highest judicial authority.
Judicial Independence:
Both nations place a strong emphasis on the principle of judicial independence, where judges are expected to be impartial and free from political influence.
Highlight of the Key points of Divergence of Judicial systems in India and the UK:
Legal Systems:
While both countries follow common law principles, India has a mixed legal system that incorporates elements of common law, civil law, and customary law. The UK primarily follows the common law system.
Legal Codes:
India has a comprehensive set of laws, with several legislations governing various aspects of life. In contrast, the UK relies more on statutes and parliamentary laws.
Appointment of Judges:
In India, judges of the higher judiciary, including the Supreme Court, are appointed by a collegium system consisting of senior judges. In the UK, judges are typically appointed through a formal process, and political bodies like the Judicial Appointments Commission play a role.
Role of Precedent [Past Decisions]:
The doctrine of precedent (Past Decisions) is applied more rigorously in the UK, where lower courts are bound to follow higher court decisions. In India, there is more flexibility in this regard.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
India has increasingly embraced ADR mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, to reduce the burden on the formal court system. The UK also uses ADR, but the emphasis might differ in specific cases.
Question.
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of a large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
( UPSC Mains General Studies-II/GS-2 2020)
Answer.
The concept of judicial legislation refers to instances where the judiciary, through its judgments and orders, appears to be making laws rather than simply interpreting laws. For example, In 2017, the Supreme Court banned the sale of liquor along national and state highways. Actually, this is the area of the legislative and executive branches of government, as it is related to making laws and executing them. Therefore, this order of the Supreme Court is an example of Judicial legislation.
The doctrine of separation of powers, as envisaged in the Indian Constitution, is designed to maintain a system of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.
However, it's important to note that the doctrine of separation of powers is not an absolute and rigid concept in India. The Indian Constitution itself allows for some level of overlap and interaction between these branches.
Here's why the filing of public interest petitions praying for guidelines to executive authorities can be justified within this framework [ Separation of powers]:
Removing Legislative Gaps:
In many cases, public interest petitions are filed because some legislative gaps or ambiguities need clarification. When the legislature hasn't clearly addressed an issue or left it to the discretion of the executive, the judiciary may step in to provide guidance to ensure that citizens' rights and interests are protected.
Protecting Fundamental Rights:
The Indian Constitution grants the judiciary the power of judicial review to ensure that laws and actions of the executive are in conformity with the Constitution, particularly about fundamental rights. When executive actions are perceived as infringing upon these rights, it becomes the judiciary's role to intervene and set guidelines to protect these rights.
Checks and Balances:
The doctrine of separation of powers is not meant to create absolute barriers between branches but rather to establish checks and balances. The judiciary's role in ensuring that the executive adheres to the rule of law and respects constitutional principles is a vital aspect of this system.
Public Accountability:
Public interest petitions often serve as a means for citizens to hold the government accountable for its actions. By seeking guidelines and directions from the judiciary, citizens can ensure that executive authorities act in the best interests of the public and within the boundaries set by the Constitution.
Evolution of Legal Principles:
Over time, societal norms and legal principles can evolve. Public interest litigation can be a catalyst for legal evolution and adaptation to changing circumstances. By issuing guidelines, the judiciary can adapt the law to contemporary challenges.
In summary, while the doctrine of separation of powers is a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution, it does allow for interventions by the judiciary, especially when there are legal ambiguities, violations of fundamental rights, or a need to ensure public accountability. Public interest petitions play a vital role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding citizens' rights within the framework of the Indian Constitution. However, such interventions by the judiciary must be judicious and well-founded to maintain the delicate balance of powers.
Question.
" Every matter of Public Interest can not be a matter of Public Interest Litigation." Evaluate. ( UPPSC 2020)
( UPPSC Mains General Studies-II/GS-2 2020)
Answer.
The statement "Every matter of Public Interest can not be a matter of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)" highlights an important aspect of the legal framework and the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal remedy that allows any citizen, group, or non-governmental organization to go to the courts on behalf of the public interest to address issues affecting the public at large.
However, not all matters of public interest are suitable for Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Here's an evaluation of the statement:
Scope of Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is intended to address issues of public interest and public importance that affect a significant section of society or marginalized groups. It is for those who may not have direct access to justice. Matters concerning human rights, environmental protection, corruption, and social justice are often brought under Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Requirement of Public Interest:
For a matter to qualify as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), it must satisfy the criteria of public interest. The issue should have broader implications and not be limited to the private interests of individuals. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cannot be used for purely personal grievances or disputes.
Role of Courts:
Courts play a critical role in determining the validity of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions. They have the responsibility to evaluate the merit and relevance of the issues raised and ensure that genuine public interest is at stake.
Senseless Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can burden the judiciary and dilute the effectiveness of this important legal remedy.
Alternative Remedies:
In some cases, issues of public interest may be better addressed through other channels, such as government institutions, administrative mechanisms, or legislative actions. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) should be considered when these alternatives are ineffective or inaccessible.
Judicial Prudence:
Courts exercise judicial prudence in entertaining Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions. They may decline to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) if it involves political issues, policy matters, or subjects that are beyond the domain of judicial review. Courts focus on upholding the rule of law, and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) should not encroach upon the functioning of other branches of government.
The burden on the Judiciary:
An excessive number of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions, especially those not related to genuine public interest, can burden the judiciary and lead to delays in addressing critical matters. This highlights the importance of filtering out non-meritorious Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
In conclusion, while Public Interest Litigation is an essential legal tool for addressing issues of public concern, it should be used judiciously and selectively. Not every matter of public interest can be or should be converted into a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Courts must carefully evaluate the merit and relevance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions to ensure that they genuinely serve the larger public interest and do not burden the judiciary with senseless matters. A balanced approach to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) ensures its effectiveness as an instrument for social justice and protecting the rights of citizens.
You may like also:
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon