Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Supreme Court, established as the guardian of the Constitution, is primarily tasked with judicial review – interpreting the law and ensuring its conformity with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. However, over the decades, the Court has increasingly been perceived as going beyond merely interpreting laws and actively contributing to policy evolution, particularly in areas where legislative action is absent or inadequate. This expansion of judicial role, often termed ‘judicial activism’, has sparked debate regarding its legitimacy and implications for democratic governance. Recent instances like the handling of environmental issues and migrant worker crises during the COVID-19 pandemic exemplify this trend.
Judicial Review and Policy Making: A Conceptual Distinction
Judicial Review, as established by Article 136 of the Constitution, empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment or order passed by any court or tribunal within the territory of India. Traditionally, this power was exercised to ensure laws didn’t violate fundamental rights. However, the scope has broadened. Policy making, on the other hand, is the process by which governments translate political goals into programs and actions. While the judiciary isn’t directly involved in this process, its rulings can significantly influence policy direction.
Historical Evolution of the Supreme Court’s Role
Initially, the Supreme Court adopted a largely conservative approach, focusing on strict interpretation of the Constitution. However, landmark judgments began to demonstrate a shift towards a more proactive role:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, effectively shaping the future of constitutional law and policy.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by introducing the concept of ‘due process’ and linking it to Article 14 (Equality before Law), influencing subsequent policy decisions related to personal freedoms.
- Vishnu Bhagwat v. State of Maharashtra (1995): Introduced the concept of ‘judicial review of administrative action’, allowing the Court to scrutinize the decisions of executive bodies, impacting administrative policies.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 onwards): A series of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by M.C. Mehta led to significant environmental policies, including regulations on polluting industries and vehicle emissions.
Arguments Supporting the Claim: The Supreme Court as a Policy Evolver
- Filling Legislative Vacuum: The Court often steps in when the legislature fails to address critical issues. For example, in the absence of specific laws on sexual harassment at the workplace, the Court formulated guidelines in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which served as the basis for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
- Protecting Fundamental Rights: The Court’s interventions often aim to protect fundamental rights, which indirectly shapes policy. The Right to Education, initially a Directive Principle, was made a fundamental right through the 86th Amendment (2002), spurred by judicial pronouncements.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL has empowered citizens to approach the Court for redressal of grievances, leading to policy changes in areas like environmental protection, healthcare, and human rights.
- Addressing Systemic Failures: The Court has intervened in cases of systemic failures, such as prison reforms (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978) and police reforms (Prakash Singh v. Union of India, 2006), prompting policy changes aimed at improving governance.
Arguments Against the Claim: Limits to Judicial Policy Making
- Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Court’s proactive role encroaches upon the legislative domain, violating the principle of separation of powers.
- Lack of Democratic Legitimacy: Judges are not elected representatives and therefore lack the democratic legitimacy to formulate policies.
- Implementation Challenges: The Court often lacks the resources and expertise to effectively implement its policy directives.
- Judicial Overreach: Concerns exist about ‘judicial overreach’ where the Court substitutes its judgment for that of the elected government.
The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Supreme Court
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of issues related to migrant workers, oxygen supply, and vaccine distribution. While these interventions were aimed at addressing a national crisis, they also raised questions about the Court’s role in managing executive functions. The Court’s directions regarding oxygen allocation, for instance, were criticized for being impractical and difficult to implement.
| Area of Intervention | Example Case/Direction | Policy Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Environment | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | Regulations on polluting industries, vehicle emissions standards |
| Workplace Rights | Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | Guidelines on sexual harassment, leading to the 2013 Act |
| Criminal Justice | Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration | Prison reforms, improved conditions for prisoners |
| Police Reforms | Prakash Singh v. Union of India | Directives for police reforms, aimed at improving accountability |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s role has undeniably evolved beyond traditional judicial review. While it remains primarily a court of law, its interventions in policy matters, particularly through PIL and proactive judgments, have significantly shaped the Indian governance landscape. However, it’s crucial to maintain a balance between judicial activism and respecting the separation of powers. The Court’s role should be to guide and nudge policy, not to supplant the legislative process. A collaborative approach between the judiciary, legislature, and executive is essential for effective governance and upholding the principles of a democratic society.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.