| PYQ Relevance: Q) Do you think that Constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain. (UPSC CSE 2019) |
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on major issues like Constitutional Principles (2019) and Basic structure (2014 and 2019) of our Constitution.
The 2024 general elections saw a turnout of approximately 65.79%. While India’s Constitution provides for a strong framework of rights and governance, its effectiveness has been compromised by political interference and corruption. The judiciary’s ability to enforce laws impartially is often challenged by political dynamics, leading to perceptions of selective justice.
Today’s editorial highlights critical concerns regarding recent actions that may undermine the foundational principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It talks about the significant in the current political climate, as it addresses issues of governance, civil liberties, and the rule of law. This content can be used to reflect the Constitutional governance issues in India.
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
In the light of a controversial ruling by the Allahabad High Court, debates around Nationalism, Secularism, and Civil liberties are increasingly polarized, which has led to a resurgence of interest in how constitutional principles are being interpreted and applied in contemporary governance.
| What are the debates and key issues highlighted recently? • Freedom of Speech vs. Responsibility: The Allahabad High Court recently upheld a charge against an individual, Owais Khan, for mocking a Hindu deity on social media. ○ The court emphasized that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right in India, it is not absolute. ○ This means that individuals must exercise this freedom with a sense of responsibility, particularly when it comes to respecting the beliefs and sentiments of others. • Judicial Activism and Accountability: Certain judicial decisions as given below may reflect a departure from constitutional values. 1. Zakia Jafri Case (2022): The Supreme Court dismissed a plea for further investigation into the 2002 Gujarat riots, stating there was no evidence of a larger conspiracy. This ruling was controversial as it was perceived to undermine accountability for state actions during communal violence, raising concerns about the rule of law and justice for victims. 2. Umar Khalid’s Bail Denial: The Delhi High Court denied bail to activist Umar Khalid, citing a prima facie case against him. Critics argue that this decision reflects an overreach of judicial authority and raises questions about the treatment of dissenters in politically sensitive cases. •Supreme Court on Places of Worship: The Supreme Court recently barred new suits against places of worship, which has implications for ongoing disputes over religious sites.This decision has been viewed as an attempt to maintain communal harmony but also raises concerns about the judiciary’s involvement in sensitive religious matters. •Controversial Remarks by Judges: Instances like Justice Srishananda’s remarks referring to a Muslim-majority area as “Pakistan” highlight how judicial comments can perpetuate biases and affect public perception of the judiciary’s impartiality. Such statements have prompted calls for clearer guidelines on judicial conduct •Secularism and Pluralism: The court’s stance on respecting religious sentiments is framed within the broader context of India’s secular fabric. ○ True secularism requires not only tolerance but also an active promotion of fraternity among diverse communities, which seems to be at risk amid rising tensions surrounding religious identities. •Public Perception and Constitutional Compact: These actions are perceived as mockery of constitutional principles and can erode public confidence in democracy. ○ It calls for a reaffirmation of commitment to the values of justice, liberty, and equality as outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution. |
What are the other contemporary challenges facing the Indian Constitution?
- Rise of Hindu Nationalism: The ascent of Hindu nationalism poses a significant threat to the secular and pluralistic fabric of India. Policies such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), have sparked debates about their alignment with constitutional values of equality and secularism.
- Erosion of Civil Liberties: There has been rising communal violence, restrictions on freedom of speech, and attacks on media independence, which deviate from the constitutional promise of a democratic society.
- Judicial Independence and Institutional Integrity: The independence of the judiciary is under scrutiny as there are fears that political considerations may influence judicial decisions. The weakening of institutional checks and balances threatens the foundational principle of separation of powers, which is crucial for maintaining democratic governance.
- Social and Economic Inequalities: The influence of money and muscle power in politics exacerbates persistent social and economic disparities, undermining democratic processes and leading to questions about fair representation. The non-enforceability of Directive Principles of State Policy further complicates efforts to address these disparities effectively.
- Federalism and Centralization: Initiatives like “One Nation, One Election” could undermine the autonomy of state governments, affecting local governance and representation. Critics argue that this centralization could dilute regional identities and issues.
What implications do these challenges have for India’s democratic framework?
- Erosion of Democratic Norms: As the judiciary grapples with issues like political interference and judicial overreach, there is a risk of eroding democratic norms.
- When judicial decisions appear to align with political interests rather than constitutional principles, it undermines the public’s trust in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter of justice.
- Threat to Fundamental Rights: Challenges such as restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly can directly impact citizens’ fundamental rights. If the judiciary fails to protect these rights effectively, it may result in a chilling effect on dissent and activism, weakening the democratic fabric that relies on robust public discourse and participation.
- Judicial Independence at Risk: The increasing politicization of the judiciary threatens its independence, which is crucial for maintaining checks and balances in governance.
- A compromised judiciary may lead to unchecked executive power, resulting in potential abuses and violations of citizens’ rights.
- Increased Polarization: The rise of identity politics and communal tensions can exacerbate societal divisions, making it difficult for the judiciary to operate effectively.
- When legal interpretations are influenced by political ideologies or communal sentiments, it can lead to verdicts that favor one group over another, undermining the principle of equality before the law.
- Impact on Governance and Accountability: Judicial decisions that favor state actions without adequate scrutiny can diminish accountability in governance. This could enable corruption and misuse of power by public officials, further eroding public confidence in democratic institutions.
How has the judiciary responded to perceived threats against constitutional values?
- Judicial Review: The Indian judiciary exercises the power of judicial review, allowing it to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
- This power is enshrined in Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Constitution, which enable the Supreme Court and High Courts to strike down laws or actions that violate fundamental rights or exceed the authority granted to the legislature or executive.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): This landmark judgment reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution over parliamentary authority, emphasizing that laws infringing on fundamental rights could be invalidated.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court established the “basic structure” doctrine, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary has consistently defended individual rights against state encroachments. The courts have expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights, ensuring they encompass a broader range of protections for citizens.
- In cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court broadened the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), ruling that due process must be followed in any deprivation of life or liberty.
- The judiciary has also intervened in cases involving social justice, such as ensuring rights for marginalized communities and addressing issues like sexual harassment through interpretations aligned with international human rights standards.
- Upholding Judicial Independence: Judicial independence is seen as crucial for maintaining constitutional integrity. The judiciary has asserted its role as a guardian of the Constitution, often resisting pressures from other branches of government.
- Justice Kurian Joseph emphasized that as long as an independent judiciary exists, there is no threat to the Constitution, highlighting the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic values and individual rights.
Way Forward:
- National Judicial Commission (NJC): Forming an NJC to oversee the appointment of judges can ensure transparency and accountability in judicial appointments, reducing political influence.
- Expansion of the e-Courts Project: Enhancing digital infrastructure for courts, including online case filing and AI-assisted case management, can significantly reduce delays and improve access to justice.
- Implementing systems like FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records) for quick communication of court orders will also expedite processes.
- Promoting Legal Literacy: Increasing public awareness about legal rights and judicial processes through educational campaigns can empower citizens to engage more effectively with the legal system.
