Judiciary’s place atop the pyramid, Pg8

– Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticised the judiciary’s lack of transparency and accountability. – He raised concerns about the use of Article 142 and judicial directions to executive authorities. – He questioned the Supreme Court’s authority to prescribe timelines for Governors and Presidents. – The article explores the balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability. – A call for a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) for more transparent judicial appointments.

Background/Context

• The Vice-President’s remarks come after recent judicial decisions on cash recoveries from a Delhi judge’s premises and directives involving constitutional authorities like Governors and the President.
  • He highlighted judicial overreach, especially in terms of prescribing administrative timelines and invoking powers like mandamus against constitutional posts.

Key Developments

• Dhankhar expressed concern over:
  • Use of extraordinary powers under Article 142 to provide 'complete justice'.
    • Judiciary's lack of public accountability, especially in high-profile or politically sensitive cases.
    • The opaque process of judicial inquiries and the need for transparency.
  • Supreme Court judgments have issued directives to Governors and Presidents regarding timelines, especially in the 2024 verdict on State Bills.

Strategic/Policy/Legal/Economic Implications

• Judicial review is vital in upholding constitutional principles, but its unchecked application can create friction with executive powers.
• There is a long-standing debate around judicial sovereignty in India, borrowed from the American model but operating within British Parliamentary values.
• The Indian Constitution balances Parliamentary and Judicial sovereignty, where courts uphold constitutional morality through interpretation.
• Suggestions include:
  • Reinstating the NJAC to ensure judicial appointments are inclusive and transparent.
    • Defining the scope of Article 142 to prevent overuse while retaining its benefits for justice delivery.

India's Stand or Way Forward

• Need for calibrated reforms that preserve judicial independence while ensuring greater transparency.
• Encourage healthy separation of powers, where each organ of government is accountable.
• Public trust in judiciary must be maintained through openness in judicial processes.
• Institutionalise mechanisms like memoranda of procedure for appointments and inquiries.

Challenges Ahead

• Balancing judicial activism and executive autonomy remains complex.
• Institutional resistance to external oversight in judicial functioning.
• Ambiguity in the constitutional boundaries of Articles like 142 and 32.
• Political and legal challenges in reviving NJAC, after it was struck down in 2015.

Mains Mock Question:

Discuss the role of judicial review in upholding constitutional morality in India. In light of recent debates, do you think there is a need to redefine the limits of judicial activism? Justify your answer.