Crafting Comfort: The Future of Footwear in India
An article by Gagandeep Kohli, CEO of NoStrain India is the world’s second-largest footwear producer, after China, as was previously…
Frequent quibbling along with indulging in one-upmanship between the Executive and the Judiciary about their powers as enshrined in the Constitution has occupied centre stage once again.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi might have been conciliatory but the issue of judicial overreach was left hanging.
This happened on the occasion of commemorating the National Law Day spread over two on November 25 and 26 when President Ram Nath Kovind and Prime Minister Narendra Modi underlined the need for the three organs of the State — the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary — to remain within their limits in fulfilling the wishes of the people.
The message from the highest echelons of the BJP led NDA was unambiguous. The Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary should go about their business without stepping on the toes of one another. Modi drew pointed attention to this aspect emphasising “the balance between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary has been the backbone of our Constitution. Because of this balance our nation was able to defeat the Emergency. When we are making every attempt to build a new India, these principles as outlined in the Constitution assumes significance. We have to fulful the peoples’ hopes and aspirations while remaining within our limits”.
The emphasis was unmistakable. After the Union Law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and the Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra had spoken, it became apparent that the Centre was concerned about judicial activism particularly with regard to the Court striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015. What had bothered the government all along tumbled out into the open.
He wondered why the Prime Minister, being a popular global leader in his own right and highly popular at home or he himself as the Law minister could not be trusted to make fair judicial appointments.
He drew attention to the case of Kolkata High Court judge C S Karnan having been held guilty of contempt of court for questioning the collegium system of appointment of judges.
On his part Justice Mishra quoted from a judgement interpreting Article 75 observing the Constituent Assembly had reposed faith in the Prime Minister and “we also repose the same trust in the Prime Minister”. Further, the CJI sought to dispel the impression that judges intended to run the country and cited specific instances to drive home the point.
Quoting various judgements of the Supreme Court, Modi maintained “the Constitution creates three major instruments of power — the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary — demarcating their jurisdiction minutely expecting them to exercise their respective powers without overstepping their limits”.
President Kovind believed the pillars of democracy were designed to lean on each other with countervailing force to strengthen the democratic processes. It is critical to keep this intricate and delicate balance when exploring the relationship among the three branches of the State. They should be careful not to disturb the separation of powers by even unknowingly intruding into the domain of either of the two other branches, the President added.
Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley observed that the Judiciary may intervene in the case of Executive failure but only to issue directives for taking necessary action. He had no doubt that the judiciary should steer clear of overreach by interfering in Executive functions. The argument that judicial activism was meant to fill the gaps left by other State organs was flawed, Jaitley added.
The focus was on the government and the judiciary respecting each others turf coupled with overcoming their deficiencies. Pragmatism is what the judiciary and the executive need at this juncture. It has become imperative to strike the right balance between the three arms of the government. At the same time the judiciary remains the first among equals and is the unequivocal custodian and defender of the Constitution.
Advertisement