Significance of SC in Upholding the Civil Liberties in India

Context 

The Supreme Court (SC) recently declared that a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that prolonged incarceration without a trial is a violation of this right, especially in cases when strict rules like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are in place.

The Court’s decision, which highlights the idea that “liberty is an intrinsic part” of constitutionalism, upholds the idea that bail should be the norm rather than the exception, demonstrating its dedication to upholding the fundamental right under Article 21 to a speedy and fair trial. Though regarded as the protector of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has come under more and more criticism in recent years. Commentators on modern politics and the constitution have questioned its efficacy, independence, and consistency, among other features of its operation.

Provisions making SC ‘The Guardian’ of Civil Liberties

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 13 – This provision guarantees the nullity of any legislation that violates or restricts fundamental rights.
• Article 32 – This article gives people the right to constitutional remedies, which enables them to petition the Supreme Court directly to have their fundamental rights upheld.
• Article 136 – This article gives the Supreme Court the authority to grant special permission to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order of any court or tribunal, including those pertaining to civil liberties. 
• Article 142 – This article empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order or decree necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter.

Various Doctrines

• Basic Structure – The Basic Structure Doctrine is a principle established by the Supreme Court which asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered or destroyed by amendments. This doctrine ensures that amendments to the Constitution must not affect its essential framework, such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law.
• Doctrine of Severability – According to this theory, if a portion of a law is determined to be unconstitutional, the remaining portion of the legislation will still be enforceable if it can continue to operate as intended. 
• Doctrine of Eclipse – This doctrine states that a legislation that violates a fundamental right is “eclipsed” or void to the extent of the infringement, but it does not become completely void. As long as it violates fundamental rights, it is ineffective; yet, if the inconsistency is fixed, it may become functional again. 
• Doctrine of Substantive Due Process – This approach makes sure laws don’t contradict the underlying principles of rights by protecting certain of them as substantive rights, going beyond simple procedural justice.

Challenges with functioning of Supreme Court

• Implementation of Judgments – The execution and enforcement of the Supreme Court’s rulings have drawn criticism from some quarters. In certain instances, the Court’s commands have been clearly followed, although the orders have not always been carried out quickly enough. Constitutional scholars contend that in the absence of strong implementation frameworks, the influence of the Court’s rulings may be lessened, which could irritate litigants and weaken the rule of law. 
• Case Delays and Pendency – The massive backlog of cases at the Supreme Court is another major problem that has caused serious delays in the administration of justice. In addition to damaging plaintiffs’ lives, adjudication delays erode public trust in the legal system.  
• Master of the Roster Issue – The idea of “master of the roster,” which gives the CJI the only authority to create benches and assign cases, has drawn criticism from a number of observers, including judges. They contend that this title should not be interpreted as implying the CJI’s superiority over other justices. 
• Judicial Overreach and Activism – The idea of judicial activism and overreach is one of the most common critiques leveled at the Supreme Court. The Court’s critics contend that it has periodically intruded into the legislative and executive branches’ jurisdiction, upsetting the balance of power between the three arms of government. 
• Appointments and Transparency Issues – Another area of contention has been the selection procedure for Supreme Court justices. In 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which aimed to restructure the appointment procedure. Further undermining confidence in the collegium’s integrity are its lack of transparency, thoroughness, and defined criteria for determining judges’ fitness. 
• Independence of Judiciary – Article 50 and Article 124(2) of the Indian Constitution, which seek to keep the judiciary independent from the executive branch, protect the independence of the judiciary, which is a key concept in India.

Measures to improve the Efficiency of Supreme Courts

• Strengthening Implementation Framework – To guarantee fast and efficient execution of orders, establish unambiguous and legally binding procedures for implementing Supreme Court rulings. 
• Reducing Case Backlog – To speed up case processing and cut down on the backlog, hire more judges and court employees. To improve efficiency and streamline processes, use technology-driven solutions like case management software and electronic filing.
• Ensuring Doctrinal Consistency – To speed up case processing and cut down on the backlog, hire more judges and court employees. To improve efficiency and streamline processes, use technology-driven solutions like case management software and electronic filing.
• Addressing Judicial Outreach – Define the limits of judicial involvement in legislative and executive affairs to strengthen the separation of powers. To prevent charges of overreach and preserve the balance between the three arms of government, encourage judicial restraint and place a strong emphasis on adherence to constitutional restrictions.
• Improving Appointments and Transparency – To improve accountability and openness in the judge nomination process, amend the Collegium structure. Think of changes that would guarantee a more transparent selection process and provide more precise criteria for assessing potential judges.

Conclusion

One of the most important aspects of a democratic society is the judiciary’s independence. The Indian Constitution upholds this ideal by containing clauses that ensure the independence of the judiciary from both legislative and executive intervention. Nonetheless, there have been difficulties with the judiciary’s independence over time. Alleged presidential overreach and attempts to sway judicial rulings have occurred on occasion. The Indian judiciary has proven its bravery and dedication to preserving the Constitution in the face of these obstacles.

SOURCE: The Hindu

Download as PDF