Open Access Research Article
ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN SHAPING LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN SHAPING
LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY
- PUSHKARAJ A. SANGVE & AKSHAY A. CHATE
P. E. S.
Modern Law College, Pune
Abstract:
Judiciary
plays indispensable role in the governance of a country. It serves as a check
on the actions of legislature and the executive. It promotes constitutionalism
and protects individual rights. While primary function of judiciary is adjudication
of disputes, it plays crucial role in shaping laws by using judicial review, methods
of interpretation and following various legal principles. It strives to uphold
rule of law and protect basic structure of the Constitution. This article marks
the role of judiciary in shaping legislations in India.
Keywords: Constitution,
Democracy, Interpretation, Judiciary, Legislation, Federalism, Basic Structure,
Governance
Introduction:
India is
recognized as world’s largest democracy. It functions through its three
distinct organs i.e legislature, executive and judiciary. These organs play
vital role in enacting laws, implementing them and ensuring their fair
application. The Legislature has been entrusted with the responsibility of enacting
laws and formulating policies for governance. It includes Parliament and State
Legislatures. The Executive has been vested with the power of enforcement of
laws, implementation of polices and administration. While the judiciary functions
as a watchdog and serves as a check on the other two organs. It plays crucial
role in interpretation of laws formulated by the Parliament and securing impartial
and legitimate implementation of these laws by the executive. Although these
three organs function in interconnected manner, the Constitution of India
provides for their separation of powers, demarcating the extent of their respective
jurisdiction.
Indian Constitution
provides for independent as well as integrated judicial system, despite having
a federal political structure. Factors such as appointment of judges based on
collegium system, security of tenure, fixed salaries and allowances, separation
from executive, power to punish for contempt, judicial review, etc. make judiciary
independent of political influence and it acts without fear or favor. Further,
Indian judicial system resembles a pyramid with Supreme Court at the apex,
followed by High Courts and then subordinate courts. This unified system
enforces both central as well as state laws. Decisions made by Supreme Court
are binding upon all lower courts which ensures uniformity and consistency in
application of laws throughout the country.
Judiciary
has been primarily vested with the power of interpreting and examining laws enacted
by the legislature and polices made by the executive. In India, Judiciary plays
crucial role in shaping legislations by interpretation of laws, judicial review
and settling of precedents. Further, it strikes down laws which violate the
basic structure of the Constitution and are derogatory with the fundamental
rights. It aids in filling up gaps within the legislations which gives it a
distinct form and determines intention of legislature behind such enactment. In
doing so, it employs several techniques and relies on various legal principles.
1. Interpretation
of Laws
Interpretation
of law is the process whereby judiciary examines the legality of legislations
enacted by the Parliament and their extent of consistency with the Constitution
and other laws. Judiciary has been empowered with the interpretation of legislations
and policies made by the Legislature and Executive branches. It acts as a final
interpreter of laws. Judicial interpretation of laws is critical for :
a.
Determining true meaning and legislative intent :
Legislations made by the Parliament may not always determine its true meaning
and intent. This may create arbitrariness and result in injustice. Therefore,
determining their true meaning and legislative intent is crucial.
b.
Providing clarity and consistency : Examination
of laws by the courts provides clarity and consistency upon such laws. For
instance, some provisions of a particular statute may be vague and ambiguous leading
to chaos with respect to a particular subject matter. In such circumstances,
judicial interpretation aids in determining clarity upon such provisions.
c.
Filling up lacuna : Lacuna refers to a gap or
missing piece in a particular legislation. In interpreting statutes, courts may sometimes
encounter lacuna which may result in inability in providing remedies to many
legal questions. In such a situation, judicial interpretation provides for
identification of such gaps and determining true meaning of such laws using
various tools and techniques of interpretation and considering legislative
intent.
d.
Consistency with Constitutional provisions : Laws
made by the Parliament must be consistent with the constitutional provisions. Also,
Article 13 states that, laws made by the Parliament in derogation with
fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of their inconsistency. In many
cases, laws made by the Parliament may encroach upon constitutional provisions
including fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens. In such cases,
judiciary plays important role in examining such laws and striking them down to
the extent of their inconsistency. Thus, it acts as guardian of the
Constitution and protector of fundamental rights of the citizens.
Rules of
Interpretation :
a.
Literal rule : It is the primary rule of
interpretation which states that legislations shall be interpreted strictly by giving
them their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. It seeks to minimize judicial
discretion by adhering to law as it is written. However, where such law is
ambiguous and unclear, judiciary may step further and apply other techniques for
its interpretation.
b.
Golden rule : Golden rule allows courts to
deviate from literal rule in interpretation of laws. It provides that where application
of literal rule results in absurdity, inconsistency and unintended results, it
may be applied for determining true meaning of the provisions. Its objective is
to prevent arbitrary, irrational and illogical interpretation, contrary to
legislative intent. Thus, it allows courts to ensure fair and just
applicability of laws.
c.
Mischief rule : Mischief rule is a remedial
approach in interpretation of statutes which aims at suppressing the mischief
and advancing the remedy. In other words, it aids in neutralizing the issue and
provide remedy for the same. It permits courts to look beyond the strict
wording of the statute and consider underlying problem that legislature
intended to address. It was developed in the famous Haydon’s case of 1584.
d.
Rule of Harmonious Construction : This is
one of the significant rule in interpretation of statutes. The essence of this
rule lies in harmonizing the conflict between two or more provisions of a
statute or of two different statutes. In such circumstances, the court strives
to harmonize the conflicting provisions, ensuring that they co-exist and
operate effectively. The aim is to avoid conflict that renders one provision
redundant and negates the purpose of another. It emphasizes that the statute
should be read as a whole and conflicting provisions should be reconciled
wherever possible.
e.
Noscitur a sociis : It is a latin phrase which
means ‘it is known by it’s associates'. It states that where in a statute, the
meaning of a word is ambiguous or unclear, it’s meaning may be interpreted by
considering the words with which it is associated. In other words, the context
provided by the surrounding words helps to determine the intended meaning of
such word. It prevents words from being interpreted in isolation which may lead
to absurd outcomes.
f.
Ejusdem generis : It is a latin maxim which means ‘of
the same kind or nature'. It states that when a statute lists specific items followed
by a general term, the general term should be interpreted to include only items
that are similar to specific ones. It provides that general words that follow
specific words restrict to the same class of specific words. It aims to give
effect to the legislative intent by preventing general words from being
interpreted in an overly board manner. Essentially, this doctrine must be
applied by the courts cautiously to clear the ambiguity in statutory provisions
and fulfilling the object of the legislation.
g.
Reddendo singula singulis : It is a
latin principle which means ‘referring each to each'. It suggests that where a
complex sentence contains multiple subjects or objects, which part of such
sentence relates to which, should be determined. It helps in distribution of
meaning appropriately by ensuring that each part of the sentence is applied to
its intended counterpart. In simpler terms, this principle helps to clarify
ambiguous sentences by ensuring that each element is correctly assigned to it’s
corresponding part. It is commonly used in interpretation of contracts and
testaments.
Furthermore,
judiciary employs internal as well as external aids in the interpretation of
laws. Internal aids are present in the statute itself such as long title,
preamble, headings, marginal notes, definitions, provisos, schedules,
illustrations, punctuation, etc. While external aids are the sources outside the
statute which include dictionaries, parliamentary history, legal treatises and
commentaries, reports of committees and commissions, etc.
Thus,
judiciary plays pivotal role in the interpretation of laws that involves
determination of legislative intent, clarification of ambiguities and filling
up gaps between legislations in order to ensure justice to the people.
2. Protecting
Basic Structure of the Constitution
The
doctrine of Basic Structure emerged in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case of
1973. It is a significant judicial principle which has stood the test of time
in safeguarding the Constitution of India. It was the outcome of the issue over
the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Earlier, in
the Shakari Prasad case of 1951, Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has power
to amend the Constitution which also includes power to amend Fundamental rights
under Article 368. Accordingly, Parliament may alter or curtail fundamental
rights of the citizens which cannot be held as unconstitutional. However, in
the GolakNath case of 1967, Supreme Court reversed its decision and ruled that
fundamental rights are inalterable and cannot be amended even under Article 368
of the Constitution. Parliament, reacted to this judgement by way of 24th
Constitutional Amendment Act of 1971 which declared that’ law' under Article 13
does not include Constitutional Amendment Act. Therefore, Parliament has power
to amend every part the Constitution. Further , several constitutional
amendments were passed by the Parliament that restricted property rights of
citizens in implementing land reforms. Also, some amendments encroached upon
other fundamental rights of the citizens.
Consequently,
in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati, a 13-judge bench of Supreme Court,
with a 7:6 majority, held that Parliament has the power to amend the
Constitution, subject to the Basic Structure. This means it cannot amend or
alter the features including fundamental rights which form the basic structure
of the Constitution. This principle was further reaffirmed in the case of
Indira Gandhi election case of 1975 and Minerva Mills case of 1980.
This cases established
the doctrine of basic structure and asserted that certain fundamental features
of the Constitution are inviolable and cannot be altered. It placed a crucial
check and restricted the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution.
Elements of
basic structure include – Democracy, Supremacy of the Constitution, Secularism,
Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Independent Judiciary, Federalism, Separation of
powers, Welfare state, harmony between fundamental rights and directive
principles of state policy, fair, free and periodic elections, etc.
Thus
judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, acts as guardian as well as
interpreter of the Constitution. It plays crucial role in protecting basic
structure and core values of the Constitution for maintaining balance of power
between different branches of government. Also, it strengthened role of
judiciary in promoting constitutionalism and upholding rule of law.
4. Upholding
Rule of Law
The role of
judiciary in upholding rule of law is of paramount importance. Rule of law is a
fundamental legal principle which means, law is the highest authority in every
society and no one is above it. Every government shall function based on the
principles of law and not according to men forming it. The essence of rule of
law lies in preventing arbitrary executive actions and safeguarding individual
liberties in order to ensure governance based on principles of law.
However,
rule of law cannot be achieved without an independent, impartial and effective judicial
mechanism. Judiciary ensures that the executive actions are not arbitrary and
based on legal principles. Further, judicial interpretation of laws helps in discarding
legal ambiguities. It secures that laws enacted by the Legislature are clear, unambiguous
and consistent with constitutional provisions and other laws.
According
to Justice Vivian Bose, ‘rule of law is the heritage of all mankind'. It
strives to uphold individual rights and dignity.
Role of
judiciary in upholding rule of law is crucial because:
1.
It strives to maintain supremacy of law through the
process of judicial review which empowers it to strike down laws violating
constitutional provisions and legal principles.
2.
It ensures that everyone is treated equally before law
and is entitled to equal protection of law without any special privileges.
3.
It warrants executive accountability to the law and highlights
limitations on their powers.
4.
It guarantees fair and just application of laws.
5.
It plays vital role in guarding individual rights and
liberties.
6.
It establishes legal precedents that guide future
cases and contribute to the development of law.
Thus,
Judiciary follows highest integrity, refraining from inappropriate conduct and
observing the values of fairness, equality, diligence, impartiality and
equality that have immensely contributed in upholding rule of law.
4. Maintaining
Federalism
Indian
Constitution provides for a federal political structure. It establishes dual
political system, with government at the centre as well as in the states. Federalism
was adopted with the rationale because it ensures efficient governance of the
country and also reconciles regional autonomy. The framers of the Constitution
had the foresight to know that an independent and effective judiciary is
essential to ensure federalism.
1.
Article 1 : Although, the word ‘federation'
has nowhere been used in the Constitution, Article 1 states that India shall be the Union of
States, emphasizing its indestructible nature. Unlike USA, Indian federation
has not been formed as a result of an agreement, therefore, no state has right
to secede from the Union.
2.
Supremacy of the Constitution : The
Constitution is the supreme law of the land which itself establishes a federal
political structure. Accordingly, both central and state government should
operate within their respective spheres.
3.
Independent Judiciary : The
Constitution establishes an independent judicial mechanism with the Supreme Court
at the apex and High Courts for the states.
4.
Division of Powers : Constitution divides
powers between the centre and the states in terms of three lists contained in
the Seventh Schedule – Union List ( containing subjects on which centre should make
laws ), Concurrent List ( containing subjects on which centre as well as states
may make laws ) and State List ( containing subjects on which states should make
laws ). However, residuary powers have been vested with the centre.
5.
Rigidity of the Amendment : Provisions
related to federal structure can only be amended by special majority and with
the approval of half of state legislatures. Thus, the procedure of amendment is
rigid.
Role of
judiciary is important in maintaining federalism because :
1.
It ensures functioning of both central and state
governments within their respective jurisdiction including enacting and
implementation of laws.
2.
Judicial interpretation by Supreme Court and High
Court’s examines the legality of laws enacted by both Parliament and State
Legislatures.
3.
It upholds division of powers and ensures that laws
made are consistent with the constitutional provisions.
4.
It strives to resolve disputes between the central
government and state government and between state governments which helps to
maintain balance of power and prevents conflicts from escalating.
5.
It guarantees that federalism, forming the basic
structure of the Constitution, is not encroached upon by the arbitrary actions
of executive.
In the
landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Supreme Court
ruled that federalism forms the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.
Further, in S R Bommai case of 1994, Supreme court laid down guidelines
regarding use of power by the President under Article 356 in order to ensure
state autonomy. The Minerva Mills case of 1980, further, solidified role of
courts in preserving federal character of Indian Constitution.
Thus,
Indian Judiciary plays vital role in maintaining federal nature of Constitution
through various processes and decisions that essentially contribute in shaping
laws and policies.
5. Judicial
Review
Judicial
review is the fundamental legal principle that confers power upon the judiciary
to examine the constitutionality of legislations enacted by the Parliament and
executive policies of Central and State governments. It was propounded for the
first time in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803 ) by the US Chief Justice
John Marshall. It aims to determine the legality and consistency of legislative
enactments and executive policies with the Constitution and other laws. It
upholds the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution. It ensures that the
Legislature and the executive does not exceed their authority.
The
Constitution of India confers power of judicial review on both Supreme Court
and High Courts. It acts as an essential tool in the hands of judiciary that
helps in protection of fundamental rights by invaliding laws that violate them.
Further, Supreme Court, has declared judicial review as the basic structure of
the Constitution which cannot be altered even by constitutional amendment. Supreme
Court has used its power of judicial review in many cases such as GolakNath v.
State of Punjab (1967), Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and
Minerva Mills case of 1908. Further, it held 99th Constitutional
Amendment Act and National Judicial Commissions Act 2014 as void and unconstitutional.
Thus, judicial
review helps to maintain federal balance and protects fundamental rights of the
citizens. In essence, it preserves the integrity of the Constitution and
protects rights of citizens.
6. Judicial
Activism
Judicial
Activism reflects a philosophy whereby the courts act in a pro-active manner by
going beyond strict interpretation of laws and precedents and making decisions
for shaping legislations, in certain circumstances, for addressing societal
issues and promoting broader social values. It indicates proactive role played by
the judiciary in promoting social justice and protecting individual rights and
liberties. It emphasizes decision making by the judges based on their views
rather than strictly adhering to statutes and precedents. The term ‘judicial
activism’ was first used by American historian and jurist Arthur Schlesinger
Jr. in an article titled ‘The Supreme Court' in 1947. In India, Justice PN
Bhagwati, Justice O Chinappa Reddy and Justice VR Krishna Iyer have notably
contributed in the development of judicial activism.
Key Elements :
1.
Broader interpretation of law and judicial precedents
2.
Addressing Social Justice
3.
Promoting societal values
4.
Active use of Judicial Review
5.
Protecting individual rights and liberties
6.
Addressing deficiencies in Governance
Judicial
activism ensures proper functioning of legislature and the executive. It
strives to uphold constitutionalism and rule of law in cases where the
legislature fails to discharge its constitutional duties, where legislature is
dominated by executive creating struggle in the enactment of laws, suppressing views
of other members and where both legislature and executive fail to protect and
promote individual rights.
In India,
civil rights activists, non-governmental organisations, environmental
activists, labour unions, consumer rights groups, media, public interest
litigations have widely contributed to the development of Judicial Activism. PIL
is major driver of judicial activism whereby individuals and groups approach
courts for preserving interest of public, particularly the marginalized
communities.
However,
some critics argue that judicial activism leads to encroachment upon legislature’s
power to enact laws. Also, it may lead judges to impose their personal beliefs
and political inferences in interpretation of laws that may lead to injustice
and situation of chaos. Despite critics, judicial activism strives to protect
individual rights and highlights deficiencies in law making.
Conclusion:
Thus, over
decades, the role played by judiciary in shaping legal landscape in India has
been significant. It maintains checks and balances over the functioning of
legislature and the executive in the enactment
and implementation of laws. It promotes constitutionalism and upholds rule of
law. It ensures that the laws enacted by the Legislature are consistent with
the constitution and does not encroach upon individual rights.
Article Information
ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN SHAPING LEGISLATIONS IN INDIA
Authors: PUSHKARAJ A. SANGVE, AKSHAY A. CHATE
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/04
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.