The Evolution of Judiciary in India: A Historical Overview

The Indian judiciary has evolved significantly since the adoption of the Constitution on January 26, 1950. Over the past 70 years, it has played a crucial role in interpreting constitutional provisions and addressing social issues. The judiciary’s journey can be understood through four key phases, each marked by distinct interpretative approaches and landmark rulings. These phases highlight the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and safeguarding individual rights in a diverse society.

Four Phases of Judicial Interpretation in India: A Historical Overview

The Birth of the Indian Constitution and Its Judicial Evolution

• The Inception of the Indian Constitution: On January 26, 1950, the Indian Constitution went into effect, making it over 70 years old. 
• A Vision for a Diverse Nation: Enacted in order to bring about universal adult suffrage, federalism in a territory made up of over 550 princely states, and a social revolution in a society split along caste, religious, and other lines, it was an extremely ambitious political experiment.
• The Role of the Indian Judiciary: Nonetheless, it has been observed that the Indian judiciary has been able to oversee a singular accomplishment in terms of constitutional construction. 
• Phases of Judicial Evolution and Interpretation: The following stages describe the evolution of the judiciary and how it has interpreted the Constitution:

Phase One: Textualist Approach

• Textualist Approach of the Early Supreme Court: During its early years of interpretation, the Supreme Court took a textualist stance, focusing on the words’ exact meanings as they were stated in the Constitution.
  • Case Study: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): It can be deduced from the 1950 case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, in which the Supreme Court interpreted Part III of the Constitution, which contained the Fundamental Rights.
    • The Communist Party of India (CPI) leaders argued in this case that the laws pertaining to preventative detention violated Articles 19 (the right to freedom), Article21 (the right to life), and Article 22 (the prohibition against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment).
  • Affirmation of Preventive Detention: In addition to affirming the legality of preventive detention, the Supreme Court ruled that the several sections dealt with rather distinct topics and should be interpreted as distinct laws instead of being interpreted collectively.
  • Parliament’s Authority to Amend the Constitution: Whether Parliament had the authority to alter the Indian Constitution and, in particular, whether it could be amended with reference to Fundamental Rights were the most contentious issues at the time.
• Initial Literal Interpretation of the Constitution: During this phase, it can be said that the Court initially interpreted the Constitution literally because there were no restrictions.

Phase Two: The Structuralist Approach

• Shift to Structuralist Interpretation: During this phase, it was evident that the Supreme Court started looking into alternative interpretation techniques. The appeals to the general structure and coherence of the Constitution eventually surpassed the appeals to its content.
  • Case Study: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court held in the well-known case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) that Parliament’s ability to change the Constitution did not include changing its fundamental structure.
  • Reversal of A.K. Gopalan: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Subsequently, the Supreme Court overturned its previous position in the A K Gopalan case in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) decision.
    • In this case, the Court viewed the Fundamental Rights as a comprehensive bill of rights as opposed to a collection of unrelated constitutional provisions.
  • Expanded Interpretation of the Right to Life: Due to the Supreme Court’s progressive interpretation of the Right to Life (Article 21), which now encompasses a wide range of rights like free legal representation, a swift trial, and clean air, the right to life has played an unparalleled role in the nation’s government.
  • Introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL): In order to put this into practice, the Indian Supreme Court invented the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), opening the doors of the legal system to the general public.
    • At present, the PIL has currently gained unparalleled legitimacy and binding authority, and it is recognized as a potent tool to resist social injustice and state illegality.

Phase Three: Challenge of Heterogeneity

• Result-Oriented Interpretation with Incomplete Analysis: During this phase, it was determined that although the Supreme Court’s interpretive philosophy had become more result-oriented, it had not provided a comprehensive analysis of the concerns.
• Expansion of the Supreme Court’s Composition: The Supreme Court  initially started off with eight justices and eventually expanded to a sanctioned strength of 34 justices.
• Polyvocality and Panel System: It then started to sit in panels of two or three judges due to the increasing number of cases and pending cases, thereby turning it into a “polyvocal” group.
• Rise of Judicial Activism: Furthermore, the Indian judiciary has grown to be one of the strongest in the world thanks to judicial activism. 
• Accusations of Judicial Overreach and Nepotism: Under the pretext of the judiciary’s independence, the Indian judiciary has been accused of judicial overreach, nepotism, and shielding itself from any reform.
• Controversial Cases Highlighting Judicial Challenges: Cases such as the Master of the Roster issue or the 99th Constitutional Amendment (National Judicial Appointment Commission) being deemed ultra vires are examples of this. 

Phase Four: Social Revolution and Transformation

• Era of Social Transformation Through Judicial Judgments: During this phase, the Supreme Court has passed several judgments  which recognises  the individual’s rights and thereby ushering in an era of social transformation.
•  Cases seen during this phase includes  
• Decriminalisation of Homosexuality: The Supreme Court in 2018  ruled to decriminalise homosexuality which was mentioned under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
• Lifting the Ban on Women’s Entry into Sabarimala Temple: The Supreme Court overturned a prohibition that barred women between the ages of 10 and 50 from accessing Kerala’s Sabarimala temple, ruling that “Devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination”.
• Adultery No Longer a Crime: The unconstitutionality of Section 497 was ruled by the Supreme Court. 
  • Although adultery itself is no longer illegal, it will still be considered aiding and abetting suicide if the conduct results in a suicide.

• Reforms for Increased Transparency: In addition to the aforementioned changes, the Indian judiciary has undergone reforms to increase transparency, such as the Supreme Court’s live streaming and the CJI’s inclusion in the RTI. 
  • To preserve the judiciary’s independence, the Indian judiciary should work to achieve a balance between accountability and transparency.

Conclusion

The evolution of the Indian judiciary reflects its responsiveness to changing societal values and needs. From a textualist approach to a focus on social transformation, the judiciary has continually adapted its interpretation of the Constitution. 

• Landmark judgments have paved the way for greater individual rights and social justice, demonstrating the judiciary’s vital role in India’s democracy. 
• As it moves forward, maintaining a balance between accountability and independence will be essential for ensuring its integrity and effectiveness.

DOWNLOAD PDF