The story so far:
Jagdeep Vice -President Dhankhar has recently raised certain problems concerning the independence of the judiciary, his authority of judicial review, and a judgment that regretted the timelines of the President and Governor for their actions.
What is the current context?
The vice -chairman expressed his views on various judicial issues in a recent event. He first spoke of a lack of transparency in the investigation by the judge as a result of the restoration of huge piles of cash in the residence of the judge of the High Court in Delhi. He questioned the legality of the procedure that is adhered to in such cases that are not stipulated under any law set by the parliament.
Secondly, he noted the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in which the Court prescribed the timelines for the president and the governors to take steps towards legislation. The court ruled that in the case of inactivity or excessive delay, these high constitutional authorities could issue a “mandamus” in writing.
Thirdly, he raised concerns about insufficient liability for judiciary towards the public in general, unlike the legislative choir and executives. This was in connection with the legal review of the legislation on constitutional benches and issued orders that interfere with the executive domain. The provisions of Article 145 (3), which require at least five judges for a decision on constitutional validity in any matter, were made in 1950, when the total power of the court was eight judges. He suggested that it may be necessary to revise because the current force is 34.
In the end, he thought that the Supreme Court used its extraordinary power according to Article 142 (in any case to provide complete justice), which undermines a representative democracy.
Critical analysis
There were opinions that the speech of the Vice President is not led by the constitutional and festive office they hold. Critical speech analysis represents us arguments in support and against observation.
Concerning the opacity of the judicial inquiries in the case of alleged incorrect behavior, the common public is widely shared. The main Indian judge should devise a procedure that provides the highest transparency in such cases to enable confidence in the rule of law.
One of the basic root causes of different questions about the judiciary is the lack of liability and transparency in appointment through a college. A wide -based commission for appointment in national appointment, and CJI will be provided by a veto to have a final word in the process of appointment, would make a selective process more transparent and inclusive without jeopardizing the independence of the judiciary.
However, the recent order of the Supreme Court, which registered the timelines of the President and the governors, was to comply with the constitutional principles under his powers. In this case, both judges reached their conclusions on the basis of various judgments on constitutions that they decided earlier. It should be noted that similar timelines were also provided in the office memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Home in February 2016.
Similarly, the “judicial activism” of the courts, including its use of Article 142, contributed significantly to ensuring justice to the needy and also for the purpose of responsibility for the executive worker. Some remarkable orders pursuant to Article 142 include compensation for the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy tragedy (1989), instructions against sexual harassment at the workplace (1997), cancellation of coal blocks that were reportedly incorrectly assigned (2024) (2024) and 2024) and 2024) (2024) and 2024) (2024)) (2024) and 2024) and 2024) and 2024) and 2024) and 2024) and 2024) (2024).
In addition, with regard to the priority that has appeared in the last seven decades and a pendant of cases in the Supreme Court, the current requirement of five judges for the Constitution’s bench may be optimal.
Judicial review and its independence
Parliamentary democracy is working on the principle that the Executive Director corresponds to the legislative choir, which is responsible to people in all elections. However, it is a judiciary that is an independent branch that adheres to the constitution and its principles in administration.
The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is associated with the British parliament. This is because there is no written constitution in the UK and parliamentary laws are highest for the country’s administration. On the other hand, the concept of judicial superiority is associated with the US, because the US Supreme Court has broad powers in the interpretation of its constitution under the “proper process of law”.
The Indian Constitutional System is a synthesis of parliamentary sovereignty and judicial domination. The “court review” was declared the “basic structure of the Constitution in various judgments of the Supreme Court, which strengthened” constitutional sovereignty “. All administration sectors should observe constitutional values by a healthy separation of powers rather than confrontation.
Rangarajan R. is a former IAS officer and author “Courseware on Polita Simplified”. He is currently training on Ias Academy’s officers. The views expressed are personal.
Published – April 22 2025 08:30
