Judicial decisions in India, as in many democracies, often vary across different levels of the judiciary. Such variations arise due to differing interpretations of the law and the perspectives of individual judges. This is why appellate courts frequently overrule lower court verdicts, and even within the Supreme Court, smaller bench decisions may be revisited and revised by larger benches. While this is a recognized and accepted part of the legal process, it sometimes leads to prolonged litigation and delayed resolution.
However, questions occasionally arise regarding the scope and limits of judicial authority—especially when courts entertain petitions against legislative actions already passed by Parliament and approved by the President.
A recent case in point is the Waqf Amendment Bill, which was debated and passed by both houses of Parliament after recommendations from a Select Committee, and subsequently received presidential assent. Despite this legislative and constitutional process, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court seeking to challenge the amendment. The Court has admitted these petitions and begun hearings, including issuing interim observations.
This development has sparked a debate about whether the Supreme Court has the authority to overrule or review legislative decisions that have followed the full constitutional procedure. The Indian Constitution vests specific powers in the Parliament, President, and the judiciary, with each expected to function within its own domain. While the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, the question arises as to how and when this power should be exercised, particularly in relation to laws passed through the constitutional amendment process.
This is not an isolated instance. In a separate case involving the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the state legislature's authority and asserted that the Governor cannot override it. Even when the President withdrew assent to the state bills, the Court intervened, stating it was exercising its special powers to uphold the legislative decisions.
This contrast—recognizing the absolute authority of a state legislature in one case while admitting petitions challenging a parliamentary law in another—has led to differing public interpretations of judicial consistency.
The functioning of constitutional bodies like Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Election Commission must ideally be guided by mutual respect and constitutional boundaries. However, in recent times, decisions of the Election Commission have also been subject to review and reversal by the judiciary, leading to perceptions of one institution being placed under another.
These developments raise concerns about the perceived balance of power. While the judiciary is rightly seen as a guardian of the Constitution and enjoys public trust, it also bears the responsibility of ensuring that its decisions are consistent, transparent, and within the constitutional framework.
The Indian public continues to look to the judiciary with high expectations, especially given the declining public trust in political institutions. In this context, it is essential that the judiciary maintains the confidence reposed in it by exercising its powers with restraint and clarity. The use of "special powers" by the Court must be guided by constitutional provisions and subject to clear judicial reasoning.
Ultimately, maintaining a healthy equilibrium among constitutional institutions is vital for the stability and integrity of Indian democracy. Ensuring clarity on the scope and limits of judicial authority is essential to avoid perceptions of overreach and to uphold public faith in the rule of law.
---
*Trustee, Nandini Voice For The Deprived, Chennai
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor