 |
|
The recent exchange between former Justice Kurian Joseph and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar regarding the Supreme Court's role and the invocation of Article 142 highlights a critical debate surrounding the balance of power and the interpretation of constitutional provisions in India. The article centers on Justice Joseph's defense of the Supreme Court's decision to invoke Article 142 in the Tamil Nadu bills case, countering Vice President Dhankhar's criticism that the court is acting as a 'super parliament' and that Article 142 has become a 'nuclear missile' against democratic forces. This incident provides a crucial lens through which to examine the complex relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, as well as the delicate balance between judicial activism and constitutional restraint. Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court extraordinary powers to issue orders necessary for 'complete justice' in any matter before it. This provision, while intended to ensure fairness and equity, has also been a subject of debate and scrutiny, with some critics arguing that it allows the court to overreach its authority and encroach upon the domains of the other branches of government. Justice Joseph's defense of the Supreme Court's action rests on the argument that the court acted within its constitutional mandate as the guardian of the Constitution, stepping in to address a situation where the governor's delay in processing the Tamil Nadu bills was effectively undermining the legislative process and the will of the people. He emphasizes that the governor, as an appointed official, is not an elected representative and that prolonged delays in the passage of bills can defeat their very purpose. Furthermore, Justice Joseph points to the Parliament's own memorandum of procedure, which suggests a timeframe of three months for the consideration of a bill, arguing that failure to adhere to such a timeline constitutes a failure to uphold the Constitution. The Vice President's criticism, on the other hand, reflects concerns about judicial overreach and the potential for the judiciary to become overly interventionist in matters that should be primarily handled by the elected representatives of the people. Dhankhar's characterization of Article 142 as a 'nuclear missile' suggests that he views the provision as a tool that can be used to disrupt the democratic process and undermine the authority of the legislature and the executive. This perspective raises important questions about the appropriate limits of judicial power and the need for the judiciary to exercise restraint, particularly in cases that involve complex political and policy considerations. The context of the Tamil Nadu bills case is also crucial to understanding the underlying tensions at play. The Supreme Court's intervention came after the Tamil Nadu governor had withheld assent to 10 bills for an extended period, prompting the state government to approach the court for relief. The court's decision to direct the President to decide on the bills within three months marked a significant assertion of judicial authority and a clear message to the governor that his actions were deemed 'illegal' and 'erroneous.' This intervention can be seen as an attempt to ensure the smooth functioning of the legislative process and to prevent the governor from effectively vetoing legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people. However, it also raises questions about the extent to which the court should intervene in matters that are traditionally within the purview of the executive branch. The debate surrounding Article 142 and the Supreme Court's role as the guardian of the Constitution is not new. Over the years, the court has invoked this provision in a variety of cases, ranging from environmental protection to social justice, often to address situations where the executive or the legislature has failed to act decisively. While these interventions have been lauded by some as necessary to protect fundamental rights and ensure justice, they have also been criticized by others as examples of judicial overreach and an encroachment upon the powers of the other branches of government. The key challenge lies in finding the right balance between judicial activism and constitutional restraint. The judiciary must be able to effectively protect fundamental rights and uphold the rule of law, but it must also be mindful of its own limitations and the need to respect the democratic process and the separation of powers. In this regard, Article 142 should be seen as a tool of last resort, to be used only in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear failure of the other branches of government to act in accordance with the Constitution. The views expressed by Justice Joseph and Vice President Dhankhar highlight the complexity and sensitivity of this issue and the need for a continuing dialogue between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature to ensure that the Constitution is upheld in its letter and spirit.
The incident also brings into focus the evolving nature of the relationship between the judiciary and the executive in India. In recent years, there have been increasing instances of friction between these two branches of government, particularly on issues related to judicial appointments, the interpretation of laws, and the exercise of executive power. The Vice President's criticism of the Supreme Court's verdict in the Tamil Nadu bills case can be seen as part of this broader trend, reflecting a growing assertiveness on the part of the executive branch and a willingness to challenge the judiciary's authority. This is not entirely new in the Indian context. Historically, there have been moments of significant tension, even confrontation, between the executive and the judiciary. The Emergency period in the 1970s, for instance, witnessed a significant erosion of judicial independence and an attempt by the executive to assert its dominance. While the situation today is different, the underlying tensions remain, particularly in cases where the judiciary is perceived as being overly interventionist or as challenging the policies of the government. The judiciary, on the other hand, has often seen itself as a bulwark against executive overreach, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights and the rule of law. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in protecting civil liberties, ensuring free and fair elections, and holding the government accountable for its actions. This has often put the court at odds with the executive, particularly in cases where the government has been accused of abusing its power or violating constitutional norms. The recent controversy over the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary is a prime example of this tension. The government has sought to play a greater role in the appointment process, arguing that it is necessary to ensure greater accountability and transparency. The judiciary, on the other hand, has resisted these efforts, arguing that they would undermine the independence of the judiciary and make it more susceptible to political influence. In this context, the debate surrounding Article 142 and the Supreme Court's role as the guardian of the Constitution takes on added significance. It reflects a deeper struggle over the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive and the competing visions of the role of the court in a democratic society. The judiciary must be independent and impartial, but it must also be mindful of the limits of its own power and the need to respect the democratic process. The executive, on the other hand, must respect the independence of the judiciary and uphold the rule of law, but it must also be allowed to govern effectively and implement its policies without undue interference from the courts. Finding the right balance between these competing imperatives is a crucial challenge for Indian democracy. A constructive dialogue between the judiciary and the executive is essential to resolving these tensions and ensuring that the Constitution is upheld in its letter and spirit. This dialogue must be based on mutual respect, a commitment to the rule of law, and a shared understanding of the importance of maintaining the independence and integrity of both branches of government. This situation underscores the need for institutional mechanisms that promote coordination and consultation between the judiciary and the executive. Regular meetings between representatives of the two branches can help to identify potential areas of conflict and to find mutually agreeable solutions. Furthermore, the government should be more transparent in its dealings with the judiciary and should provide clear and convincing reasons for its policy decisions. The judiciary, on the other hand, should be more mindful of the practical implications of its rulings and should strive to avoid interpretations of the Constitution that are overly rigid or that unduly restrict the government's ability to govern.
Finally, the article highlights the importance of constitutional awareness and civic education in a democratic society. The debate surrounding Article 142 and the Supreme Court's role as the guardian of the Constitution is not just a matter for lawyers and judges. It is a matter that concerns all citizens, as it goes to the heart of the relationship between the government and the governed. In order to participate effectively in this debate, citizens need to have a basic understanding of the Constitution and the principles of constitutionalism. They need to understand the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the importance of protecting fundamental rights. They also need to be able to critically evaluate the arguments made by different actors in the political process and to form their own informed opinions. Unfortunately, constitutional awareness and civic education are often neglected in India. Many citizens lack a basic understanding of the Constitution and the principles of democracy. This makes them more susceptible to misinformation and manipulation and less able to hold their elected representatives accountable. Addressing this deficiency requires a concerted effort to improve civic education in schools and universities. The Constitution should be a central part of the curriculum, and students should be encouraged to think critically about the principles of democracy and the challenges facing Indian society. In addition, the government and civil society organizations should work together to promote constitutional awareness among the general public. This can be done through public service announcements, educational campaigns, and community outreach programs. The media also has a crucial role to play in promoting constitutional awareness. Journalists should be encouraged to report on constitutional issues in a clear and accessible way and to provide citizens with the information they need to participate effectively in the political process. Ultimately, the health of Indian democracy depends on the active participation of informed and engaged citizens. By promoting constitutional awareness and civic education, we can empower citizens to hold their government accountable and to protect their fundamental rights. Justice Joseph's call for 'no one shall be permitted to fail the Constitution' is a powerful reminder of the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting the values of democracy. In conclusion, the debate surrounding Article 142 and the Supreme Court's role as the guardian of the Constitution is a complex and multifaceted issue that touches upon fundamental questions about the balance of power, the interpretation of constitutional provisions, and the relationship between the government and the governed. The views expressed by Justice Joseph and Vice President Dhankhar reflect the different perspectives and concerns of the judiciary and the executive. Finding the right balance between judicial activism and constitutional restraint, promoting a constructive dialogue between the judiciary and the executive, and fostering constitutional awareness and civic education among the general public are all essential to upholding the Constitution and ensuring the health of Indian democracy. The article provides a valuable starting point for further discussion and debate on these important issues, reminding us that the protection of the Constitution is a collective responsibility that rests on all citizens, not just lawyers and judges.
Source: Top court guardian of Constitution: Ex-judge on Vice President's judiciary remark