📚 Understanding Judicial Review, Article 142, and the Separation of Powers
📰 Why It’s in the Spotlight
Recent Supreme Court rulings have ignited fresh debates on judicial overreach vs constitutional duty, raising the question: Is India’s apex court crossing the line or simply upholding its mandate?
⚖️ Foundations of Judicial Review in India
-
Not explicitly stated but rooted in Article 13 – empowers courts to strike down laws violating Fundamental Rights.
-
Articles 32 & 226 ensure judicial protection of rights – key to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
-
Mechanisms like Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and relaxed locus standi have increased judicial access, but critics argue this invites overreach.
🚨 Article 142: Delivering “Complete Justice” or Judicial Overreach?
-
Allows the SC to pass orders for “complete justice” in any matter.
-
Used in major rulings:
-
Babri Masjid resolution
-
Mob lynching guidelines
-
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as divorce ground
-
-
Critics: Discretionary power can blur separation of powers.
-
Supporters: It fills legislative and executive voids.
-
VP Jagdeep Dhankhar’s remark calling it a “nuclear missile” sparked controversy.
-
🧑⚖️ Recent Landmark Judgments: A Mixed Record
Alleged Judicial Deference:
-
Demonetization (2017) – Upheld, seen as executive-aligned
-
Rafale Deal (2018) – Cleared, criticized as hands-off
-
NRC Assam (2019) – Raised minority rights concerns
-
Same-Sex Marriage Ruling (2023) – Denied recognition, seen as regressive
-
CAA & EVM Petitions – Delays caused frustration
Assertive Judiciary Examples:
-
Struck down Electoral Bonds Scheme (2024) – Promoting political transparency
-
Declared NJAC Unconstitutional (2015) – Protected judicial independence
-
Tamil Nadu Governor Case (2024) – Used Article 142 to grant deemed assent, reinforcing federalism
🔍 Parliament vs Judiciary: The Balance of Power
-
The debate reflects a deeper conflict between Parliamentary Supremacy and Constitutional Supremacy.
-
Leaders critique judicial activism when in power, praise it in opposition – a political paradox.
-
Nehru’s Warning: Judiciary should not act as a “third chamber”, but must check legislative excesses.
-
The Separation of Powers is part of the Basic Structure, yet blurred in complex governance scenarios.
📊 Countering the Judicial Despotism Narrative
-
Data-Driven Insight: Of 1,579 cases citing Article 142 (1950–2023), SC explicitly used it in only 50% – reflecting judicial restraint. (IIM-Ahmedabad, 2024 Study)
-
Key Judgments Supporting Restraint:
-
Prem Chand Garg (1962): Orders must comply with Fundamental Rights.
-
SC Bar Association v. Union of India (1998): Article 142 cannot override statutory law.
-
✅ Conclusion: Finding the Constitutional Balance
India’s Supreme Court is not moving toward despotism, but navigating a delicate institutional role amid legislative inertia and rising executive assertiveness.
✔️ Judicial interventions are often corrective, not authoritarian.
✔️ Restraint and transparency must guide future judicial action.
✔️ Public discourse should critique constructively, not condemn the judiciary.