 |
|
The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Bhushan Gavai, recently articulated a crucial perspective on the relationship between the three branches of the Indian government – the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature – emphasizing that none holds ultimate authority over the others. Instead, Justice Gavai underscored the supremacy of the Constitution of India, asserting that all three wings are equal and must work together in harmony and mutual respect, adhering to the principles and framework established by the Constitution. This statement, delivered at a felicitation function organized by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, comes at a particularly significant time, amidst ongoing debates and discussions concerning the separation of powers and the extent of judicial review, especially in the context of Presidential and Gubernatorial actions. The articulation of this principle is a timely reminder of the foundational tenets of Indian democracy and the delicate balance required to maintain its integrity and stability. Justice Gavai's assertion reaffirms the commitment to the rule of law and the importance of institutional cooperation in upholding the constitutional framework. The backdrop to this statement is particularly noteworthy. President Droupadi Murmu had recently sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the contentious issue of whether the court can impose timelines on Governors and the President regarding the handling of state bills. This 14-point Presidential Reference, invoking the SC's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, reflects the executive's concern about potential judicial overreach into its domain. The Centre's apprehension stems from a perception that the judiciary is encroaching upon the executive's functions by prescribing conduct and setting deadlines for the President and Governors in matters pertaining to state legislation. This Presidential Reference highlights the intricate and often sensitive interplay between the judiciary and the executive, particularly concerning the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions relating to the powers and responsibilities of these high offices. The core issue revolves around the extent to which the judiciary can intervene in the discretionary powers of the President and Governors, especially in the context of assenting to or reserving state bills for presidential consideration. The potential for conflicting interpretations of these constitutional provisions necessitates a clear and authoritative clarification from the Supreme Court to ensure clarity and avoid future disputes. Furthermore, the reference underscores the broader debate about the appropriate balance between judicial review and executive autonomy, a recurring theme in constitutional democracies worldwide.
The President's concerns were triggered by a specific judgment delivered by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan on May 8. This judgment addressed a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which challenged the Governor's delay in clearing bills that had been passed a second time by the state legislature. The Tamil Nadu government's grievance centered on the Governor's decision to reserve these bills for the President's consideration, a move perceived as a deliberate obstruction of the legislative process and a violation of the state's autonomy. The Supreme Court's intervention in this matter raised questions about the scope of judicial review in relation to the Governor's discretionary powers and the extent to which the court can prescribe timelines and guidelines for the exercise of these powers. The Presidential Reference further emphasized the existence of conflicting judgments within the Supreme Court itself regarding the justiciability of the President's assent under Article 201 of the Constitution. This internal inconsistency within the judiciary highlights the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of this constitutional provision, necessitating a definitive ruling to resolve the conflicting viewpoints and provide clarity on the matter. The conflicting judgments underscore the need for a comprehensive and authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court to settle the legal uncertainties and establish a consistent framework for the exercise of presidential and gubernatorial powers in relation to state legislation. The issue of judicial overreach is not new. Even before his elevation to the CJI, Justice Gavai had acknowledged concerns about the judiciary encroaching upon the functions of the other branches of government. In April, while hearing two separate matters, he observed that the judiciary was being accused of interfering with parliamentary and executive functions. This observation reflects a broader perception that the judiciary is becoming increasingly active in areas traditionally considered the domain of the legislature and the executive. The executive had specifically questioned apparent judicial overreach in a matter concerning violence in West Bengal, arguing that the court was exceeding its authority by intervening in matters that fall within the purview of the executive branch.
Similarly, in another case involving explicit online content, Justice Gavai had remarked that it was the Union's responsibility to frame rules in that regard, implicitly acknowledging the legislature's role in lawmaking. These instances demonstrate the ongoing tension between the judiciary and the other branches of government regarding the division of powers and the appropriate scope of judicial review. Justice Gavai's awareness of these concerns suggests a commitment to maintaining a balanced and respectful relationship between the different branches of government, recognizing the importance of each branch fulfilling its constitutional mandate without unduly encroaching upon the functions of the others. Further elaborating on the core principles of the Constitution, Justice Gavai highlighted the 'basic structure' doctrine, which posits that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as its supremacy, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, are unamendable by Parliament. This doctrine serves as a safeguard against any attempt to alter the fundamental character of the Constitution and ensures the preservation of its essential principles. The 'basic structure' doctrine has been a subject of considerable debate and discussion, but it remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law, providing a check on the legislative power of Parliament and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and constitutional values. The doctrine reinforces the idea that the Constitution is not merely a collection of legal provisions but a living document that embodies the core values and principles of the Indian nation. Beyond the legal and constitutional aspects, Justice Gavai also touched upon broader social and economic issues, expressing satisfaction that the country has made progress in strengthening social and economic justice. He specifically referred to his judgment against 'bulldozer justice,' emphasizing the fundamental right to shelter. Justice Gavai asserted that the right to shelter is a fundamental right and that the family home of an accused or convicted person, if legally occupied, cannot be removed or demolished without following due process of law. This statement reflects a commitment to protecting the rights of vulnerable populations and ensuring that the rule of law is applied fairly and equitably to all members of society.
Justice Gavai's stance against 'bulldozer justice' underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law even in the face of public pressure or perceived exigencies. It also highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals and ensuring that government actions are consistent with constitutional principles. In addition to these domestic concerns, Justice Gavai also spoke about his visits to various areas across the country, including the troubled region of Manipur. He conveyed a message of solidarity and support to the warring communities in Manipur, assuring them that the country stands with them and that justice is within their reach. This gesture reflects a commitment to addressing the root causes of conflict and promoting reconciliation and healing in areas affected by violence and unrest. Justice Gavai's visit to Manipur underscores the judiciary's role in promoting social harmony and ensuring that all citizens have access to justice, regardless of their background or location. The event also marked the release of a book chronicling 50 significant judgments delivered by Justice Gavai, providing a valuable record of his judicial contributions and insights into his legal philosophy. The book serves as a testament to his commitment to upholding the rule of law, protecting fundamental rights, and promoting social justice. The compilation of these judgments offers a comprehensive overview of Justice Gavai's jurisprudence and provides valuable insights for legal scholars, practitioners, and students. Overall, Justice Gavai's recent pronouncements and actions reflect a deep commitment to upholding the Constitution, promoting the rule of law, and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights. His emphasis on the equality of the three branches of government and the need for mutual respect and cooperation underscores the importance of maintaining a balanced and effective system of governance. His pronouncements on social and economic justice, as well as his efforts to promote reconciliation and healing in conflict-affected areas, demonstrate a commitment to addressing the broader challenges facing Indian society. Justice Gavai's leadership as CJI promises to be guided by these principles, ensuring that the judiciary plays a vital role in safeguarding the Constitution and promoting the well-being of all citizens.
Source: CJI says all three wings equal, only Constitution is Supreme