Font size:
Print
Constitutional Balance and Rule of Law in India
How the Judiciary Maintains Accountability
Context:
The recent comments made by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar regarding the role of the Indian judiciary have sparked widespread concern and merit a detailed constitutional analysis.
More on News
- Speaking in the context of the Supreme Court’s directive to set time limits for the President and Governors to approve Bills passed by the legislature, Dhankhar criticised the judiciary for allegedly acting as a “super Parliament” and for issuing directives to constitutional heads.
- He further claimed that judges are not accountable because the “law of the land does not apply to them.”
- These remarks, coming from the second-highest constitutional office in India, could send misleading signals and have serious implications for the doctrine of separation of powers and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Judiciary and the Myth of a ‘Super Parliament’
- Popular Sovereignty: The notion of a “super Parliament” has no constitutional basis.
- In the Indian constitutional framework, Parliament is the supreme legislative body, representing the will of the people and upholding the principle of popular sovereignty.
- However, to ensure that no institution, including Parliament, acts arbitrarily, the judiciary is vested with powers of review and interpretation, as embedded in the Constitution.
- Checks and Balances: This balance was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) case, which held that although judicial powers are derived from the Constitution, they are exercised within a well-defined framework of checks and balances.
- The independence of the judiciary is guaranteed, but this does not make it immune to accountability.
- Should any judge act outside constitutional boundaries, Article 50 and relevant judicial accountability provisions allow for removal based on proven misbehavior, thus reinforcing the integrity of the system.
Can the Judiciary Direct the President?
- To understand whether the judiciary can issue directions to the President of India, one must examine the constitutional role of the President.
- As per Articles 52, 53, and 79, the President is the constitutional head of the Republic, the Executive, and the Parliament.
- While the President holds substantial symbolic and procedural powers, he or she is expected to act in accordance with popular sovereignty and constitutional propriety.
- When Bills passed by Parliament or State Assemblies are held up indefinitely for Presidential or Gubernatorial assent, it undermines the legislative process and democratic mandate.
- In such cases, judicial intervention to set deadlines is not only legitimate but also essential to uphold the will of the people.
- It ensures that executive delay does not dilute legislative intent, and this is entirely consistent with constitutional principles.
Accountability of Judges and the Rule of Law
- The Vice-President’s assertion that the judiciary is not bound by the law of the land is both misleading and detrimental to India’s rule of law.
- The rule of law is a cornerstone of the Constitution and binds all authorities, including judges.
- Judges are not above the law; rather, they are its interpreters and custodians, empowered to ensure that every act of the state aligns with constitutional mandates.
- If a judge violates constitutional provisions, there exists a mechanism for impeachment, ensuring judicial accountability.
- Moreover, Parliament retains the power to override judicial decisions through legislation, provided such laws do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
- This dynamic reflects popular sovereignty and the essential balance between the judiciary and legislature.
Judicial Review and Article 142: The Power to Do Complete Justice
- The Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to review legislative and executive actions, thereby safeguarding citizens’ rights.
- Under Article 142, the Court can pass orders necessary to do complete justice in any case before it.
- This provision emphasises the judiciary’s role not as a rival to Parliament but as a complementary institution that ensures laws and executive actions serve the public interest.
