Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Role of Judiciary in Good Governance

    Uploaded by

    Aditya Deshmukh
    57 views4 pages
    The judiciary plays a vital role in India as the guardian of the constitution. [1] It protects fundamental rights and holds the state accountable for violations of civil liberties. [2] The courts have expanded the right to life to include environmental protection and the right to education. [3] The basic structure doctrine established that the parliament cannot amend the constitution to remove fundamental rights but can regulate them, excluding aspects that form the basic structure. [4] The writ jurisdiction of the courts allows individuals to seek relief for violations of their rights.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN GOOD GOVERNANCE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The judiciary plays a vital role in India as the guardian of the constitution. [1] It protects fundamental rights and holds the state accountable for violations of civil liberties. [2] The courts have expanded the right to life to include environmental protection and the right to education. [3] The basic structure doctrine established that the parliament cannot amend the constitution to remove fundamental rights but can regulate them, excluding aspects that form the basic structure. [4] The writ jurisdiction of the courts allows individuals to seek relief for violations of their rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    57 views4 pages

    Role of Judiciary in Good Governance

    Uploaded by

    Aditya Deshmukh
    The judiciary plays a vital role in India as the guardian of the constitution. [1] It protects fundamental rights and holds the state accountable for violations of civil liberties. [2] The courts have expanded the right to life to include environmental protection and the right to education. [3] The basic structure doctrine established that the parliament cannot amend the constitution to remove fundamental rights but can regulate them, excluding aspects that form the basic structure. [4] The writ jurisdiction of the courts allows individuals to seek relief for violations of their rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN GOOD GOVERNANCE: ANSWER II

    Introduction

    As the guardian and custodian of the Constitution, India's judiciary has assumed a vital role. It
    not only acts as a watchdog against violations of fundamental rights guaranteed by the
    Constitution, protecting all people, citizens and foreigners alike from discrimination, abuse of
    state power, arbitrariness, and so on, but, in the words of one of the American Constitution's
    founding fathers, James Medison, the Indian judiciary is "truly the only defensive armor of the
    country and its constitution and laws. If this armor’s onerous functions were removed, "the path
    to nullification, anarchy, and convulsion would be wide open.”

    As a result of the proactive role played by the Indian courts, liberty and equality have persisted
    and thrived in India. The rule of law, one of the most important characteristics of good
    governance, prevails in India because the country has an independent judiciary that has been
    sustained, among other things, by the support and assistance of an independent bar that has been
    fearless in advocating for the underprivileged and deprived and those sections of society that are
    either unaware of or unable to secure their rights due to various handicaps.

    The presence of constitutional constraints on the scope of government power is one of the most
    important elements of just democratic governance. Periodic elections, civil rights guarantees, and
    an independent judiciary are examples of such constraints, which allow citizens to seek
    protection of their rights and recourse against government actions. These restrictions aid in the
    accountability of government branches to one another and to the public. An independent
    judiciary is critical for maintaining the rule of law and, as a result, is the most crucial aspect of
    good governance.

    Role of Indian Judiciary in Good Governance

    I. Executive Actions and Human Rights


    a. Personal liberty was declared as the most valuable possession in Icchu Devi
    Choraria. The court condemned detaining suspects without a trial.
    b. The Supreme Court in Nilabati Behera asserted the judiciary's jurisdiction as
    "protector of civil liberties" under the obligation "to repair damage caused by
    officers of the State to fundamental rights of citizens," holding the State liable to
    pay compensation to the relatives of a person who has been deprived of life due to
    their wrongful action, reading into Article 21 the "duty of care" that could not be
    denied to anyone. The court based its decision on Article 9(5) of the 1966
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that "anyone
    who has been the victim of arbitrary arrest or detention will have an enforceable
    right to compensation."
    c. In the case of D.K. Basu , the Court found custodial torture “a naked violation of
    human dignity” and ruled that law does not permit the use of third degree
    methods or torture on an accused person since “actions of the State must be right,
    just and fair, torture for extracting any kind of confession would neither be right
    nor just nor fair”.

    II. Right to Life and Environmental Concerns


    Our judiciary has always had a very proactive approach to environmental concerns
    and has expanded the ambits of Article 21 to include right to a clean environment
    vide multiple judgments, holding the state duty bound to ensure a sustainable
    environment. Some of these judgments have been S. Jagannath v. Union of India,
    M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India etc.

    III. Education and Minority Rights


    Various judgments in the fields of education and minority rights have made
    significant contributions in both of these fields over the last 50 years. Rather than
    going back 50 years to the cases of the Kerala Education Bill, St. Xavier College,
    and St. Stephen College, one can look at a few recent decisions [Mohini Jain, Unni
    Krishnan (leading to the insertion of Article 21-A), TMA Pai, Islamic Acadamy,
    and P.A. Inamdar (leading to the insertion of Article 15(5)].
    IV. Basic Structure Doctrine: Whether the word “law” in Article 13 includes
    constitutional amendments?
    a. Shankari Prasad v. UOI: This question arose for the first time in this case in
    which it was held that the word ‘law’ in Article 13 means the statutes made in
    exercise of ordinary legislative procedure. It does not include constitutional
    amendments made under the special procedure of Article 368. Hence, the
    parliament can take away the fundamental rights by constitutional amendment.
    b. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajashthan: The decision in Shankari Prasad’s case
    was upheld by the Supreme Court.
    c. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: The Supreme Court overruled its earlier
    decisions and held that fundamental rights are sacrosanct and have been given a
    ‘transcendental and immutable’ position, and hence, parliament has no power to
    amend part III of the constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental
    rights. The word ‘law’ in Article 13 includes the word amendment. Had the
    intention of Constitution makers be to exclude the amendment from purview of
    Article 13, they would have explicitly mentioned it. Moreover, Article 13(3) has
    been designed in a very broad fashion. In absence of any exception for
    amendment, it is indeed included in Article 13 and a constitutional amendment
    cannot abridge the fundamental rights of people.
    d. 24th Amendment Act, 1971: The Parliament reacted to the Supreme Court
    judgment in the Golak Nath case by enacting the 24th Amendment which
    circumvented the decision. The amendment added Clause (4) in Article 13 which
    expressly declared that the word ‘law’ in Article 13 does not include
    constitutional amendment.
    e. Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala: In this case, the constitutional validity
    of 24th Amendment was challenged. The Supreme Court overruled its judgment
    in the Golak Nath Case and it upheld that validity of the 24th Amendment and
    stated that the parliament is empowered to abridge or take away any of the
    fundamental right. At the same time, the Supreme Court fulfilled its role as the
    guardian of fundamental rights of citizens and it formulated the classical
    ‘Doctrine of Basic Structure’ of the Constitution. According to it, the parliament
    can amend fundamental rights but it cannot touch those fundamental rights which
    form a part of the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution. Basic structure denotes the
    basic pillars upon which the Constitution stands. This concept was picked up from
    the Weilmer Constitution (Germany) to guarantee basic rights to all citizens and
    to prevent its encroachment by the state.
    The net result of Keshavanand Bharti’s judgment was that it over- ruled
    Golaknath Case and it upheld Shankari Prasad subject to the doctrine of basic
    structure.

    V. Writ Jurisdiction
    According to Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, which grant the Supreme
    Court and High Courts, respectively, writ jurisdiction for the enforcement/protection
    of an individual's fundamental rights, a person whose rights have been violated by an
    arbitrary administrative action may seek appropriate redress from the Court. These
    are the writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari Quo Warranto.

    Conclusion

    The Indian judicial system is a prime example of how the judiciary may improve governance.
    While it may be appropriate for the courts to give the executive's opinion due deference, any
    State action that violates a person's personal freedoms or fundamental human rights must
    invariably be subject to judicial review based on conclusive evidence in accordance with the
    law and through a fair procedure. It is reassuring to witness that the two other major state bodies
    of India have consistently acknowledged the judiciary's authority to subject every State action to
    "judicial review" and have either complied with or taken the required steps to support that
    authority.

    You might also like