Note4Students: 

Prelims:  Judicial Review;

Mains: Judicial Review and Judicial Activism;

Mentor comment: The Indian constituent assembly adopted judicial review to ensure the effective functioning of the constitutional democracy in India. Judicial review allows the judiciary to protect the fundamental rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution. It serves as a mechanism to ensure that laws and actions of the government do not violate these rights. It also ensures the successful operation of constitutional democracy in India. It allows for the protection of democratic principles, the separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary.

Let’s learn.

–

Why in the News?

Concerns have arisen due to the ambiguity in the CAA Rules regarding the status of applicants denied citizenship, raising fears of detention center placements.

• Petitioners have expressed worries about dual citizenship for foreign applicants, potentially leading to citizenship uncertainty and conflicting with the Parent Act.

The lack of interdiction in the Judiciary:

• Manish Kumar vs Union Of India, 2021: The Legislation is generally assumed to be free of malice. The Supreme Court said that there can be no estoppel against the Legislature, and the concept of transferred malice is alien in the field of legislation
• Gurudevdatta Maryadit and Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra and Ors (2001): The Supreme Court, in this case, has stated that legislative malice falls outside the jurisdiction of law courts. It also held that it is not appropriate to attribute malice to the legislative process.
• Case of Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023): This case called for an independent body to select the Election Commission of India (ECI) to avoid executive dominance.
  • The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 reinstated the Prime Minister’s Committee’s role in ECI appointments.
• Jaya Thakur vs Union of India (2024) challenged the Act, highlighting its unconstitutional nature threatening democratic foundations.
  • The Court’s refusal to prevent the Act’s implementation based on presumed validity raises concerns about safeguarding democracy and free elections.

Impacts of Lack of Interdiction in Critical Times:

• Conventional wisdom falls short in addressing challenges posed by populist regimes using motivated legislation.
• Obsolete presumptions of law validity hinder constitutional courts from playing a counter-majoritarian role effectively.
• Impact of Political Statements: Legislation reflects political ideologies, especially in regimes undermining constitutional democracy. Judicial reluctance to interdict laws based on presumed validity can lead to irreversible consequences, as seen in cases like demonetization and the dilution of Kashmir’s special status.

Way Forward:

• Strengthen Judicial Review: Judicial review should be strengthened to effectively check legislative actions that manipulate Electoral processes or undermine Constitutional Democracy.
  • Courts need to adopt a more assertive approach in critical times to fulfill their counter-majoritarian role.
• Prioritize Urgent Cases: Urgent cases challenging unconstitutional laws should be prioritized to prevent irreversible consequences. Delays in deciding such cases can make the litigation almost a fait accompli, as seen in the dilution of Kashmir’s special status.
• Ensure Effective Implementation of Judgments: Courts should ensure the effective implementation of their judgments by preventing the legislature from overriding them through motivated legislation. 
• Enhance Judicial Infrastructure: Improving judicial infrastructure, such as increasing the number of judges and courts, can help expedite the hearing of urgent cases. Adequate resources and efficient case management systems are crucial for the timely delivery of justice.