Should Indian Judiciary be Committed to Policies, of the People in Power?


Arguments for :

In a country which is to overhaul its outdated social sys­tem, it is necessary that new law should be made. If the Judiciary declares those laws ultra-virus, it becomes difficult for the Govern­ment to bring necessary changes in the social structure. If the Judiciary is committed to the policies of the Government it will try to interpret the law in a manner that does not bring the newly passed laws in conflict with the Constitution.

Constitutional law is generally vague because it must ad­mit of liberal interpretation. No doubt Indian Constitution is quite detailed, yet all the things cannot be covered by the written constitu­tion. The interpretations of a Judiciary sometimes gives new mean­ings to the constitutional law. Such interpretations are necessary because the progress of the country must be in tune with the chang­ing circumstances. Only a Judiciary committed to the policies of the Government can do so.


Judiciary to a great extent becomes instrumental in bring­ing relevant changes in the economic and the social life of the people because it can increase the scope of their fundamental rights, by giving a comprehensive definition of a particular right. In the Indian Constitution, the guidelines for interpreting the Constitution are supposedly given in the Directive Principles of State Policy. It is for the judiciary to interpret the constitutional law accordingly. But

no body can challenge their interpretations even if they are contrary to the Directive Principles. So instead of bringing conflict between the Government and the judiciary it is better than the judiciary should be committed to the policies of the Government.

Arguments against :

1. If Judiciary is committed to the policies of the government independence of the people will be in danger. The government will make laws which will encroach upon the rights of the people. For example, the Government could pass the controversial Defamation Bill easily but it would have been for the judiciary to check this type of encroachment upon the rights of the people.


2. The main functions of the parliament is to make laws and the main functions of the executive is to implement them ; in a par­liaments democracy majority in the parliament belongs to the party in power. Democracy may be reduced to the dictatorship of the majority if judiciary is committed to the policies of the Government. Politicians in India are not guided by moral! principles and their only aim is to retain power by one or the other method ; if judiciary becomes committed to their policies it will be difficult for the people to check the party in power from acting according to its own will.

3. Committed judiciary will also create distrust among the States of the Indian Union. There are so many disputes among the different States and they do not have any faith in the Central Govern­ment because they feel that the Centre would favor those States where their own political party is in power but they do have faith in judiciary and committed judiciary will not inspire confidence.

, , , ,

Web Analytics Made Easy -
Kata Mutiara Kata Kata Mutiara Kata Kata Lucu Kata Mutiara Makanan Sehat Resep Masakan Kata Motivasi obat perangsang wanita