Why in the News?
The recent remarks made by the Vice-President of India about the role of judges have raised serious concerns and need to be carefully examined.
What concerns arise from the Vice-President’s comments on judges’ roles in India?
- Undermines Judicial Authority: Calling judges a “super parliament” questions the legitimacy of judicial review — a core function to uphold the Constitution. Eg: Criticism of court directions to Governors on bill assent.
- Erosion of Constitutional Balance: His comments disrupt the delicate balance among the legislature, executive, and judiciary by implying judicial overreach without constitutional basis. Eg: In cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court protected constitutional principles through its basic structure doctrine—critical for maintaining checks and balances.
- Erodes Public Trust: Statements from high offices may weaken public faith in judicial impartiality and independence. Eg: Comments implying judges are unaccountable raise doubts on rule of law.
Why is the term “super parliament” problematic in India’s parliamentary system?
- Contradicts the Principle of Popular Sovereignty: Parliament derives its authority from the people; no organ, including the judiciary, can override it. Calling the judiciary a “super parliament” distorts this hierarchy. Eg: In Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019), the Supreme Court clarified that judicial review strengthens—not replaces—parliamentary supremacy.
- Misrepresents the Role of Judicial Review: Judicial review is a constitutional mechanism to check the validity of laws—not an attempt to legislate. Calling it a “super parliament” falsely equates judicial scrutiny with lawmaking. Eg: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down amendments violating the Constitution’s basic structure without encroaching on the legislative domain.
- Undermines Separation of Powers: The term falsely suggests that the judiciary exceeds its mandate, eroding the balance between the three organs of government enshrined in the Constitution. Eg: The L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) judgment upheld judicial review as part of the basic structure, emphasizing that courts act within their defined constitutional limits.
How does the Constitution ensure judicial independence and separation of powers?
- Fixed Tenure and Security of Judges: Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through a rigorous impeachment process, ensuring they are free from executive or legislative pressure. Eg: The impeachment process under Article 124(4) was invoked in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), though it did not lead to removal, demonstrating the difficulty of arbitrary dismissal.
- Financial Independence of the Judiciary: The salaries, allowances, and pensions of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to parliamentary vote, protecting them from financial manipulation. Eg: This provision, under Article 112 and Article 125, ensures that the executive cannot curtail judicial functioning by reducing funds.
- Constitutional Authority of Judicial Review: The Constitution explicitly empowers courts to review laws and executive actions for constitutional validity, preserving checks and balances between organs of government. Eg: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court asserted its authority to strike down amendments violating the Constitution’s basic structure.
What justifies the judiciary setting deadlines for the President to clear Bills in line with popular sovereignty?
- Fixed Tenure and Security of Judges: Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through a rigorous impeachment process, ensuring they are free from executive or legislative pressure. Eg: The impeachment process under Article 124(4) was invoked in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), though it did not lead to removal, demonstrating the difficulty of arbitrary dismissal.
- Financial Independence of the Judiciary
The salaries, allowances, and pensions of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to parliamentary vote, protecting them from financial manipulation. Eg: This provision, under Article 112 and Article 125, ensures that the executive cannot curtail judicial functioning by reducing funds.
Why is the claim that judges are above the law considered irrational?
- Judges are bound by the Constitution and Rule of Law: Judges operate strictly within the constitutional framework and are accountable to it. Any violation of constitutional provisions by a judge amounts to “proved misbehaviour” and can lead to removal. Eg: Article 124(4) allows Parliament to impeach a Supreme Court judge for proven misbehaviour or incapacity, showing they are not immune from the law.
- Parliament can override judicial decisions by making new laws: If the judiciary overreaches or issues controversial verdicts, Parliament can counter it through legislative action, reinforcing democratic accountability. Eg: After the Shah Bano case (1985), Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively reversing the Court’s judgment.
Way forward:
- Respect Constitutional Boundaries: All constitutional authorities should uphold the principle of separation of powers and avoid statements that may undermine public trust in institutions.
- Promote Constructive Dialogue: Encourage open, respectful discussions between the judiciary and executive to resolve differences while maintaining democratic values.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2020] Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
Linkage: Judicial action (issuing guidelines to the executive) to the separation of powers doctrine. It discusses judicial legislation, which is when courts effectively create law, blurring the lines between the judiciary and legislature. This raises concerns about accountability – to whom is the judiciary accountable when it is perceived to be legislating?
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
