Chapter 6: Judiciary and the Parliament| Class 11 Polity Notes

The relationship between the judiciary and Parliament in India is intricate, marked by moments of collaboration and tension. As two pillars of democracy, they play distinct yet interconnected roles in upholding the Constitution and ensuring the rule of law. Let’s delve into this dynamic relationship.

Judiciary and the Parliament

The Supreme Court has not only been active in protecting rights but also in preventing any actions that could undermine the Constitution, especially in politics. It expanded its oversight to areas previously considered outside judicial review, like the powers of the President and Governors.

There are many instances where the Supreme Court has intervened to direct executive agencies, such as instructing the CBI to investigate cases like the hawala scandal and illegal petrol pump allotments. These actions often stem from judicial activism.

In India’s Constitution, there’s a careful balance of power among the different branches of government. The Parliament makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary settles disputes and ensures laws align with the Constitution. Despite this division, conflicts between the Parliament and judiciary, and executive and judiciary, have been common.

One major conflict concerned the Parliament’s attempt to restrict the right to property for land reforms. The Court ruled that even through amendments, fundamental rights cannot be abridged. This conflict extended to issues like preventive detention laws, job reservations, and property acquisition regulations.

In 1973, the Kesavananda Bharati case established the doctrine of basic structure, stating that no one, not even the Parliament through amendments, can violate this basic structure. This ruling reshaped conflicts between the Parliament and judiciary.

Some unresolved issues include whether the judiciary can regulate the legislature’s functioning and if legislators can seek court protection against disciplinary actions. These conflicts highlight the importance of each branch respecting the authority of others in a democracy.

Judicial Activism: Challenging Political Practice

Expanding the Scope of Judicial Review:

The judiciary, through judicial activism, has extended its purview to areas traditionally beyond its reach, including the powers of the President and Governor. This proactive stance aims to prevent the subversion of the Constitution through political practices.

Directives to Executive Agencies:

The Supreme Court has intervened in administrative matters by issuing directives to executive agencies. Notable instances include instructing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate cases involving politicians and bureaucrats, such as the hawala case and illegal allotment of petrol pumps.

Constitutional Principles: Limited Separation of Powers

Understanding the Division of Powers:

The Indian Constitution is built on the principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances. While Parliament is supreme in lawmaking and amending the Constitution, the judiciary holds supremacy in settling disputes and ensuring legislative compliance with constitutional provisions.

Historical Conflicts:

Historical conflicts between Parliament and the judiciary have revolved around issues such as the scope of right to property, Parliament’s power to curtail fundamental rights, and the extent of its authority to amend the Constitution.

Landmark Ruling: Kesavananda Bharati Case

Defining the Basic Structure:

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) was a watershed moment, shaping the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. The Supreme Court ruled that there exists a basic structure of the Constitution that cannot be violated, even through constitutional amendments.

Judicial Interpretation:

This ruling empowered the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and determine the boundaries of legislative authority. It underscored the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional principles and protector of fundamental rights.

Ongoing Challenges: Balancing Powers and Sovereignty

Unresolved Issues:

Certain issues remain contentious, such as the judiciary’s intervention in parliamentary proceedings and the Parliament’s ability to discipline its members without judicial interference. These unresolved matters highlight the delicate balance of powers between the two organs of government.

Respecting Institutional Authority:

In a democracy, it is imperative for each organ of government to respect the authority of others. While conflicts may arise, mutual respect and adherence to constitutional principles are essential for maintaining democratic governance.

Conclusion

The relationship between the judiciary and Parliament in India is complex, characterized by legal interpretations, constitutional principles, and institutional dynamics. As guardians of democracy, both institutions must navigate their roles with diligence, ensuring accountability, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law.

Judiciary and the Parliament- FAQs

What is the concept of judicial activism in the context of the judiciary’s relationship with Parliament?

This refers to instances where the judiciary actively engages in addressing social and political issues, even those traditionally outside its purview. It often involves interpreting laws broadly and issuing directives to executive agencies or Parliament.

How does the Kesavananda Bharati case impact the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary?

The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the doctrine of basic structure, stating that certain fundamental aspects of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament. This case empowers the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and limits the scope of parliamentary authority.

What are some historical conflicts between Parliament and the judiciary in India?

Historical conflicts include disputes over issues such as the scope of right to property, Parliament’s power to restrict fundamental rights, and its authority to amend the Constitution. These conflicts highlight the tension between legislative and judicial powers.

Can the judiciary intervene in parliamentary proceedings?

This remains a contentious issue. While the judiciary’s role is to interpret laws and ensure their constitutionality, there are debates about the extent to which it can intervene in parliamentary proceedings, particularly in matters of legislative discipline and privilege.

How can the delicate balance of powers between Parliament and the judiciary be maintained in a democracy?

Maintaining this balance requires mutual respect for institutional authority and adherence to constitutional principles. Both Parliament and the judiciary must uphold democratic values, respect the separation of powers, and work collaboratively within their respective roles to serve the interests of the nation.