Judiciary: Upholding Rights in a Democratic Framework

The judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding and safeguarding individual rights within a democratic society. It serves as a check on the abuse of government power, ensuring that laws and actions align with constitutional principles.

How the Judiciary Safeguards Individual Rights in India through Article 32, Article 226?

Constitutional Remedy: Every citizen of India can approach the Supreme Court or the High Court if they believe that their Fundamental Rights have been violated. 

• The Constitution provides two ways in which the Supreme Court can remedy the violation of rights:
  • Article 32: The Supreme Court can restore fundamental rights by issuing writs of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus etc. 
  • Article 226: The High Courts can also issue such writs using Article 226.
  • Article 13: It can declare the concerned law as unconstitutional and therefore non-operational. This involves judicial review.

Power Dynamics: Judiciary, Parliament, and Ongoing Conflicts in India

 Separation of Power in Indian Democracy:

• Preventing Subversion: The court has not been active only on the matter of rights, but it is also seeking to prevent subversion of the Constitution through political practice.
• Judicial Review: The areas such as powers of President and Governor were brought under the purview of judicial review.
• Power Separation in Indian Democracy: The Constitution of India is based on the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances.
  • Supremacy of Each Branch: This principle provides that, the Parliament is supreme in making laws and amending the Constitution, the executive is supreme in implementing them while the judiciary is supreme in settling disputes and deciding whether the laws that have been made in accordance with the Constitution.
• Ongoing Conflicts in India: Despite this separation of powers, the conflict between the judiciary, executive and legislative has remained a consistent theme in Indian politics.

Constitutional Conflicts: Parliament vs Judiciary on Property Rights and Reservations in India

• Conflict between these two institutions can be analyzed through 2 distinct cases:

• 1. Dispute Over Status of Right to Property. 
  2. Reservation Case For Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). 

A. Dispute Over Status of Right To Property:

• Controversy over Property Rights: After the implementation of the Constitution, a controversy arose over the parliament’s power to restrict the right to property. 
• Land Reforms Challenge: The Parliament wanted to put restrictions on the right to hold property so that land reforms could be implemented.
• Fundamental Rights: The court held that the Parliament cannot restrict fundamental rights.
• Amendment Attempts: Then the Parliament tried to amend the Constitution, but the court said that even through an amendment, a fundamental right cannot be abridged.
• Legislative-Judiciary Conflicts: During the period 1967 and 1973, there were conflicts between the legislature and judiciary for the land reform laws, laws enforcing preventive detention, laws governing reservations, in jobs, regulations, acquiring private property for public purposes, and laws, deciding the compensation for such acquisition of private property.

B. Reservation Case For Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC), 1990

• Mandal Commission: In 1979, the Government of India had appointed the Mandal Commission. 
• Reservation Recommendation: The Commission gave its Report in 1980 recommending 27 per cent of government jobs be reserved for the socially and educationally backward classes.
• Reserved Job Quotas: On August 13, 1990, the Government of India issued an Office Memorandum. It said that 27 per cent of the vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India are reserved for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).
• Widespread Protests: It led to widespread protests and counter protests, some of which were violent because this decision affected thousands of job opportunities.

Supreme Court’s Judgement: Validating Orders, Modifying Reservations in Indira Sawhney Case

• ‘Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India’ Case: The Supreme Court of India bunched all these cases together. This case was known as the ‘Indira Sawhney and others Vs Union of India Case’.
• Supreme Court Judgment: Eleven judges of the Supreme Court heard arguments of both sides.
• Government Order Validity: By a majority, the Supreme Court judges in 1992 declared that this order of the Government of India was valid.
• Reservation Modification: At the same time, the Supreme Court asked the government to modify its original order. 
• Excluding Well-to-Do: It said that well-to-do persons among the backward classes should be excluded from getting the benefit of reservation.

Importance of Institutions: Democracy’s Functioning, Decision-Making Challenges

• Institutional Checks: We can see that a democracy works well when all the institutions perform functions assigned to them. 
• Democracy’s Functioning: Institutions make it difficult to have a good decision taken very quickly. 
• Decision-Making Challenges: But they also make it equally difficult to rush through a bad decision.

Conclusion:

• The judiciary protects the rule of law and ensures the supremacy of law.
• It safeguards rights of the individuals, settles disputes in accordance with the law and ensures that democracy does not give way to individual or group dictatorship.

DOWNLOAD PDF