Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Examine the function of the Indian judiciary, with a focus on the Supreme Court’s authority, and contrast it with other legal systems throughout the world. Talk about the arguments over judicial activism and the proper limits of judicial review.
The Indian Judiciary: Guardian of Constitution and Catalyst for Change
India’s judiciary plays a pivotal role in its democratic setup. The Supreme Court, at the apex, wields significant powers and enjoys a unique position compared to other nations.
Powers of the Supreme Court:
Guardian of the Constitution: The Supreme Court acts as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, ensuring all laws and government actions comply with it. It can declare laws unconstitutional through the power of judicial review.
Protector of Fundamental Rights: The Court safeguards the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, upholding individual liberties against potential infringement by the government.
Dispute Resolution: The Court adjudicates disputes between the center and states, and between citizens and the government.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A unique feature, PIL allows individuals or groups to approach the Court on behalf of the public interest.
Comparison with Other Nations:
US vs. India: A key difference lies in judicial review. The US Supreme Court can overturn legislation deemed unconstitutional, influencing future laws. In India, the Court can strike down laws, but the legislature can enact new ones to circumvent the ruling.
Common Law vs. Civil Law Systems: Unlike common law countries (e.g., UK) where judge-made precedents hold significant weight, India’s civil law system primarily relies on codified laws. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretations set precedents with considerable influence.
Debates on Judicial Activism:
Boundaries of Judicial Review: Concerns arise when the Court appears to overstep its boundaries by striking down elected representatives’ laws. Critics argue this undermines the democratic process.
Social Change vs. Judicial Overreach: The Court has played a proactive role in enacting social reforms, particularly regarding women’s rights and environmental protection. Supporters view this as necessary when the legislature fails to act.
Finding the Right Balance:
The Indian judiciary enjoys a position of immense power. Here’s how to ensure it functions effectively:
Judicial Restraint vs. Activism: Finding a balance between respecting the legislature’s role and proactively addressing societal issues.
Clearer Separation of Powers: Defining clearer boundaries for judicial review to avoid friction with the legislative and executive branches.
Improving Judicial Infrastructure: Investing in faster resolution times and reducing case backlogs to ensure timely access to justice.
Conclusion:
India’s judiciary stands as a crucial pillar of its democracy. The Supreme Court’s power and activism have been instrumental in safeguarding rights and driving social change. However, ongoing debates highlight the need for a well-defined balance between judicial power and the other branches of government. By fostering an environment of cooperation and clear boundaries, India’s judiciary can continue to be a force for justice and progress.