Let me define what the two terms actually means? India possesses an integrated and unified judiciary for the whole country. The judiciary system which is followed in India was actually formed on the basis of the British Legal System in pre-independence era. Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India deals with the Indian judicial system. The Supreme Court, the High Courts and the lower Courts constitute a single Judiciary. Parliament is the supreme legislative body of India. The Indian Parliament comprises of the President and the two Houses-Lok Sabha (House of the People) and Rajya Sabha (Council of States). The President has the power to summon and prorogue either House of Parliament or to dissolve Lok Sabha.
In the past Parliament has passed laws whenever it thought that the Judiciary had contrary conception to what the Legislature found desirable. An example of recent instance of a remark made by Union Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj, is debatable. He said that if the institution including Parliament was accountable then why not the judiciary? Parliament represents the people of Indiaand definitely has every right to rewrite a law or constitutional provision. But who would ensure that the law does not violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution? The courts have to do the job. Therefore, judicial review is an integral part of any democratic system.1 We can’t blame only the judiciary.
Though there should be a balance between Judiciary and Parliament, with recent cases it’s hard to judge for one as the supreme on other. Both Parliament and the Judiciary are important essentials of the Constitution. I think the Constitution is supreme, and not any of them. Sometimes there are many judges build a notion that Supreme Court is beyond everything which is actually a misconception. All its decisions are announced publicly, yet many MPs continue to attack the functioning of the courts.
Other example was ‘Single directive’ in the hawala case. It laid down that the government’s prior permission which was required in order to initiate an inquiry or action against public servants enjoying the rank of joint secretary and above. The Supreme Court threw out the discriminatory directive and removed the distinction between one set of officers and the other. But the government has reenacted a new law to restore the idea of a ‘single directive’ which, apparently, comes in handy for political purposes. This way top officials can ensure that the government will not give permission for action against them should a scam come to light? The new law has been challenged and awaits the verdict of the Supreme Court. 1
Though there should be a balance between Judiciary and Parliament, with recent cases it’s hard to judge for one as the supreme on other. Both Parliament and the Judiciary are important essentials of the Constitution. I think the Constitution is supreme, and not any of them. Sometimes there are many judges build a notion that Supreme Court is beyond everything which is actually a misconception. All its decisions are announced publicly, yet many MPs continue to attack the functioning of the courts.
Other example was ‘Single directive’ in the hawala case. It laid down that the government’s prior permission which was required in order to initiate an inquiry or action against public servants enjoying the rank of joint secretary and above. The Supreme Court threw out the discriminatory directive and removed the distinction between one set of officers and the other. But the government has reenacted a new law to restore the idea of a ‘single directive’ which, apparently, comes in handy for political purposes. This way top officials can ensure that the government will not give permission for action against them should a scam come to light? The new law has been challenged and awaits the verdict of the Supreme Court. 1
Another example was ‘Declaration of judges' assets’. Recently Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan said that the judiciary was not against declaration of judges' assets and that it was ready to "implicitly" obey Parliament if it passes a law in this regard. The CJI said on this issue that the judiciary needs to obey Parliament on disclosure of assets. K G Balakrishnan also asked about the protests by opposition on a clause in the Judges Assets Bill which prevents making declarations made by judges public.2 Clause 6 of the Bill states that declaration made by a judge to the competent authority shall not be made public or disclosed and shall not be called for or put into question by any citizen, court or authority. The protests by opposition had forced the government to defer tabling the Bill in Parliament. 2
Another example of Judiciary versus Parliament was, in a historic judgment on the Keshavananda Bharati case in 1973, Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot change the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The judgment was criticized saying that the judiciary had crossed its limits. Since the legislature represents the people, controls the government and makes law, no one can interfere with its freedom and authority to do so. The judiciary has to adjudicate disputes, interpret the Constitution, “declare the law” and pass the necessary order “for doing complete justice”. The Supreme Court is the final authority for interpreting and pronouncing on the provisions of a law. Any law which is violative of constitutional provisions is invalidated. 3
The constant conflict between the Judiciary and Parliament would go on. With raised past issues, it is sure that the tug of war between Judiciaryand Parliament would remain a burning question in future.
Source:
www.iecolumnists.expressindia.com
www.thehindu.com
www.mainstreamweekly.net
No comments:
Post a Comment