Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian judiciary, enshrined by the Constitution as the guardian of fundamental rights and the interpreter of laws, has historically been perceived as a reactive force, primarily tasked with resolving disputes and ensuring adherence to the rule of law. However, in recent decades, a discernible shift has occurred. The judiciary is no longer confined to merely limiting governmental actions that violate constitutional principles; it is actively engaging in policy formulation, often mandating specific actions to address societal issues and governance deficits. This proactive role, fueled by the expansion of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and a broader interpretation of ‘justiciable’ issues, marks a significant evolution in the Indian democratic framework.
The Traditional Role of the Judiciary
Traditionally, the judiciary operated on the principle of ‘separation of powers’, primarily focusing on adjudicating disputes between individuals, or between individuals and the state. Its role in policy was limited to striking down laws deemed unconstitutional through judicial review (Article 132, 136 of the Constitution). Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, reinforcing the judiciary’s power to review constitutional amendments, but this was still largely a reactive function.
The Shift Towards Proactive Policy Formulation
Several factors have contributed to the judiciary’s increasing involvement in policy formulation:
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Introduced in the 1980s, PIL enabled the judiciary to address grievances of marginalized sections and systemic issues, even in the absence of a directly affected individual petitioner.
- Expanded Scope of ‘Justiciable’ Issues: The judiciary has broadened the scope of issues it considers ‘justiciable’, extending its purview to areas like environmental protection, healthcare, and prison reforms.
- Judicial Activism: A growing number of judges have adopted a more activist approach, interpreting constitutional provisions liberally to promote social justice and good governance.
Illustrative Examples of Judicial Intervention in Policy
| Area | Judicial Intervention | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Environment | M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – Directives regarding pollution control in the Ganga River. | Led to the establishment of pollution control boards and stricter environmental regulations. |
| Healthcare | Judicial intervention regarding access to essential medicines and healthcare facilities for the poor. | Mandated the government to ensure availability of affordable medicines and improve healthcare infrastructure. |
| Food Security | Directives regarding the Public Distribution System (PDS) to ensure food grain reaches the intended beneficiaries. | Led to reforms in the PDS and efforts to reduce corruption and leakages. |
| Road Safety | Court’s intervention on road safety issues, mandating road safety measures and penalizing negligent authorities. | Increased awareness and implementation of road safety regulations. |
Recent Trends & Landmark Judgments
More recently, the Supreme Court’s intervention in the COVID-19 pandemic response (In Re: Proper Treatment of COVID-19 Patients (2021)) demonstrated its willingness to directly oversee national policy during a crisis. The court issued directives on oxygen supply, vaccine distribution, and hospital management. Similarly, the ongoing judicial scrutiny of electoral bonds scheme (struck down in Feb 2024) highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding transparency and fairness in the electoral process. The recent judgment on the Delhi Services Act also showcases the judiciary’s role in defining the powers of the Union and States.
Implications and Concerns
While judicial intervention in policy can be beneficial, it also raises concerns about the separation of powers and the potential for judicial overreach. Critics argue that the judiciary lacks the expertise and democratic legitimacy to formulate policy effectively. There are also concerns about the enforceability of judicial directives and the potential for delays in implementation. However, proponents argue that judicial intervention is necessary to fill the gaps left by legislative inaction and executive inefficiency.
Conclusion
The judiciary’s evolving role in policy formulation reflects a dynamic interplay between the three pillars of democracy. While the traditional role of safeguarding constitutional principles remains paramount, the judiciary is increasingly assuming a proactive stance to address societal challenges and ensure good governance. This trend, while raising legitimate concerns about the separation of powers, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to social justice and its willingness to act as a catalyst for positive change. A balanced approach, respecting the boundaries of each branch of government, is crucial to harness the benefits of judicial intervention while mitigating potential risks.
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.