Judiciary: Its Constitution, Roles and Impartiality

What is Judiciary?

The judiciary is a branch of government responsible for interpreting and applying laws to ensure justice and resolve societal disputes. In India, it mirrors the British legal system, with the Supreme Court overseeing High Courts and District Courts. The judiciary safeguards fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring citizens’ security and fairness. It can interpret laws, resolve conflicts between states and the Union, and strike down laws that violate fundamental rights. Through various legal doctrines like the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, Severability, and Colourable Legislation, courts ensure laws are interpreted accurately and applied within the constitutional framework. Overall, the judiciary plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law, protecting rights, and maintaining the balance of power in society.

Judiciary: Its Constitution, Roles and Impartiality

In India, the judiciary mirrors the British legal system. At the top is the Supreme Court, overseeing 25 High Courts, which, in turn, manage District Courts. According to Article 129, the Supreme Court holds the status of a ‘court of record,’ with powers like punishing contempt, extending to its subordinate courts. Article 141 mandates that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts.

In India, the judiciary is pivotal in interpreting laws, settling disputes, and safeguarding rights. It ensures adherence to the Constitution and resolves conflicts between states and the Union.

Principles like “pith and substance,” “severability,” and “colorable legislation” are invoked by the courts to interpret laws accurately and ensure their proper application within the constitutional framework.

1. What is Doctrine of Pith and Substance?

The Doctrine of Pith and Substance is a principle used by courts to determine the true nature and purpose of a law when there’s uncertainty about its constitutionality. It focuses on the main objective or “pith and substance” of the law rather than its incidental effects. If a law’s main purpose falls within the powers granted to the legislature by the Constitution, it is upheld even if it incidentally touches on subjects outside those powers. This doctrine helps ensure that laws are interpreted based on their essential aims and intentions rather than technicalities or side effects.

2. What is Doctrine of Severability?

The Doctrine of Severability is a legal principle applied when a part of a law is found to be unconstitutional or invalid. Instead of striking down the entire law, the court removes or “severs” the unconstitutional part while leaving the rest intact, if possible. This allows the valid portions of the law to remain in effect, promoting judicial economy and preserving legislative intent. The decision to sever depends on whether the remaining provisions can still function independently and achieve their intended purpose without the unconstitutional portion. It ensures that the law remains enforceable to the extent possible despite any defects.

3. What is Doctrine of Colourable Legislation?

The Doctrine of Colourable Legislation refers to the practice where a legislature tries to enact a law under a power it doesn’t possess, disguising it as falling within its authority. Courts examine the substance, not just the form, of the law to determine if it’s a veiled attempt to encroach upon powers reserved for another authority. If the court finds that the law is essentially an attempt to exceed constitutional limits, it’s deemed “colourable” and struck down. This doctrine ensures that legislative bodies operate within their designated spheres of authority, preventing abuses of power and maintaining the constitutional balance.

Case Laws

1. State of Maharashtra v. FN Balsara

Introduction:

The case of State of Maharashtra v. FN Balsara is a landmark legal case in India that deals with the issue of prohibition laws and the state’s authority to impose restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol.

Facts of the Case:

• The Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, enforced by the State of Maharashtra, prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol within the state. However, the Act included provisions allowing for the grant of licenses for the sale of alcohol for medicinal, industrial, or other non-beverage purposes. FN Balsara, a licensed pharmacist, challenged the validity of certain provisions of the act, arguing that they infringed upon his fundamental rights under the Constitution.

Issue in the Case:

• The main issue in the case was whether the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which restricted the sale and consumption of alcohol, violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the right to carry on trade or business and the right to personal liberty. No the question arises, whether the law is valid or violative of Article 246.

Judgment in the Case:

• The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, held that while the state has the authority to regulate or prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol in the interest of public health and morality, the restrictions imposed by the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, were unconstitutional as they infringed upon the fundamental rights of citizens without reasonable justification. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing individual rights with the state’s regulatory powers, striking down certain provisions of the Act while upholding the overall objective of temperance and public welfare.

2. Balaji v. State of Mysore

Introduction:

• Balaji v. State of Mysore is a significant case in Indian constitutional law that deals with the reservation of seats in educational institutions for socially and educationally backward classes.

Facts of the Case:

• The State of Mysore (now Karnataka) passed an order reserving seats in medical colleges for various categories, including backward classes, scheduled castes, and scheduled tribes. The petitioner, Balaji, challenged the order, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Issue in the Case:

• The main issue in the case was whether the state’s order reserving seats in educational institutions based on caste violated the right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution.

Judgement in the Case:

• The Supreme Court of India upheld the state’s reservation policy, stating that it was consistent with the Constitution’s objective of promoting social justice and equality. However, the Court imposed certain limitations on the extent of reservation, ruling that it should not exceed 50% of the total seats available. This case established the principle of a 50% cap on reservation, ensuring a balance between affirmative action and meritocracy.

Supreme Court and Judicial Review

The Supreme Court, alongside High Courts, can issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto, ensuring enforcement of fundamental rights (Article 32, Constitution of India). These writs empower the Court to safeguard citizens’ rights and liberties. It holds authority to nullify laws conflicting with fundamental rights, demonstrating its role as a vigilant protector of these rights, guaranteeing citizens’ security. Through judicial review, the Supreme Court upholds constitutional principles, reinforcing its status as the guardian of fundamental rights in India.

Judiciary: Its Constitution, Roles and Impartiality- FAQs

What is the role of the judiciary in India?

The judiciary in India interprets and applies laws, resolves disputes, and safeguards rights. It ensures justice, upholds the rule of law, and interprets laws passed by the legislature.

How does the Supreme Court ensure the protection of fundamental rights?

The Supreme Court, through Article 32 of the Constitution, can issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto to enforce fundamental rights. It can also nullify laws that violate these rights.

What are the key doctrines used by courts to interpret laws in India?

The key doctrines include the Doctrine of Pith and Substance, Doctrine of Severability, and Doctrine of Colourable Legislation. These principles help courts determine the true nature and constitutionality of laws.

Can you explain the significance of the case of State of Maharashtra v. FN Balsara?

This case dealt with the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and its impact on fundamental rights. The Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions of the Act violated fundamental rights without reasonable justification, emphasizing the importance of balancing individual rights with the state’s regulatory powers.

How does the case of Balaji v. State of Mysore impact reservation policies in educational institutions?

Balaji v. State of Mysore established the principle of a 50% cap on reservation in educational institutions. While upholding the reservation policy, the Supreme Court imposed limitations to ensure a balance between affirmative action and meritocracy.