The Need for Judicial Vigilance

Source: This post on The Need for Judicial Vigilance has been created based on the article “Critical times call for strong judicial adjudication” published in “The Hindu” on 20 May 2024.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper 2 – Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure.

Context: The article highlights the importance of strong, immediate, and unambiguous judicial review in the case of statutes that are unconstitutional or have divisive agenda.

What are the issues with the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)?

1) There is a lack of clarity on the fate of applicants whose requests for citizenship are rejected. It is possible that they may end up in detention centers.

2) There are worries about foreign applicants receiving dual citizenship without giving up their original citizenship, which contradicts the intent of the main Act.

Read more- Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) Rules

Why do constitutional courts not interfere with statutes or statutory rules frequently?

Constitutional courts generally presume that laws made by Parliament are valid unless they are shown to breach constitutional provisions. The conventional wisdom is that the legislative process is not usually driven by malicious intent.

For ex-This was stated in the case of Manish Kumar vs Union of India in 2021. Similarly, in the case of Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot judge the motives behind legislation.

What are the issues with this approach of the constitutional court?

1) Lack of Judicial Interdiction-The Supreme Court has refrained from interdicting (stopping or restraining) the operation of enactments due to the presumption of validity. This has led to delay in judgements in cases like Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India (2023) (demonetization case) and by this time the situation had already become irreversible.

2) Endangering Democracy–

A) The recent Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 overturned the Supreme Court judgement in Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023) case and reinstated the “Prime Minister’s Committee” method for ECI selection.

B) This new Act was subsequently challenged in Jaya Thakur vs Union of India (2024), where the Court refused to prevent the implementation of the statute, despite it being unconstitutional and threatening the foundation of democracy.

3) Counter Majoritarian Role: Contemporary populist regimes globally often invoke targeted legislation, manipulating the electoral system and enacting laws with little regard for constitutional schemes. Such trends necessitate an assertive judicial approach to maintain the counter-majoritarian role of constitutional courts.

What should be the way forward?

The Supreme Court should learn from its track record and understand the political consequences of its insensitivity during critical times. The Supreme Court has effectively interdicted parliamentary legislations in cases like the 27% quota for OBC candidates in professional colleges in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India, 2007 and the 3 contentious farm laws in Rakesh Vaishnav vs Union of India, 2021.

Question for practice

Why is it rare for constitutional courts to intervene in statutes or statutory rules? What are the concerns associated with this approach taken by the constitutional court?