The Doctrine Of Judicial Review

Advocate Arjun *

High Court Complex at Chingmeirong Imphal on April 07 2012 :: Pix - Bullu Raj

(The legislatures cannot avoid significance of the judicial review and direction given to them if interpreted by the Supreme Court within the Constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court can also overrule its own previous decision depending on different time and place if it demands its necessity while keeping certainty of the Constitutional laws in interpretation. The traditional view is that the legislation is for the general interest whereas the Judiciary is for the particular interest after interpretation of the intention of the legislatures. It is the privilege of the Judges to expound the laws. )

In Democratic Country like India, the Judiciary is given a place of great significance. Primarily, the Courts constituted a dispute resolving mechanism. The primary function of the Court is to settle down disputes and resolve disputes and disposes Justice between one citizen and another, between the citizens and the State and also between the various organs of the State itself. As well, the Courts perform the role of expounding the provisions of the Constitution and exercise power of declining any law or administrative action which may have inconsistent with the Constitution as unconstitutional and hence avoid. The greatness of a Judge would depend upon his capacity to guess the objective of the Legislation and how the Legislatures intended to achieve those objectives correctly and thus would mould the law appropriately.

The Judicial function fears from a feeling that a system based on a written Constitution can hardly be effective in practice without an authority, independent and impartial arbiter of Constitutional issues. Also, it's necessary to restrain Governmental Organs from exercising powers which may not be sanctioned by the Constitution. In such circumstances, the Courts acts as the Protector, Guardian or Interpreter of the supremacy of the Constitution by keeping all Authorities, Legislative, Executive, Administrative , Judicial or Quasi-Judicial within legal bounds.

Thus, the Judiciary scrutinizes Government's action in order to assess whether or not they conform to the Constitution and the valid laws made therein and thereafter. If the Constitution, having provisions guaranteeing the Fundamental rights of the people, the Judiciary has the power and responsibility to protect the people's rights from any undue and unjustified encroachment by any organ of the State. Further, in a Country having a federal system, the Judiciary acts as the balance wheel of federation by setting disputes between the Centre and States or among the States inter-se. Therefore, the Judicial Review has two prime factors or functions:

a) Legitimizing Governmental Actions;
b) Protecting the Constitution against any undue encroachments by the Government.

In Directorate of Enforcement V. Deepak Mahajan (1994), 3SCC 440, it was held that every law is designed to further the ends of Justice but not to frustrate on mere technicalities. Though the function of the Courts is only to expound the law and not to legislate, nonetheless the legislature cannot be asked to sit down to resolve the difficulties in the interpretation of its intention and the spirit of the law. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the Court to mould or interpret the legislation by liberally interpreting the statute.

The scope of Judicial Review in India is somewhat circumscribed as compared to that of the USA. In India, the fundamental rights are not as broadly worded as in USA. The limitations thereon have been stated in the Constitution itself. The Constitution makers adopted this strategy as they felt that the Courts might find it difficult to work out the limitations on the fundamental rights and the same better be laid down in the Constitution itself. The Constitution makers also left that the Judiciary should not be raised to the level of super-legislature. In spite of all this, the Indian Supreme Court does play a significant role in the Indian Constitutional process. Since the commencement of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been rendering hundreds of decisions, expounding various provisions of the Constitution.

A Principle of great significance which avoids stulfication of the Constitutional law and helps in its continuous development through the process of judicial interpretation is that the Supreme Court does not regard itself bound by its own previous decisions and feels free to overrule them if necessary and as it thinks so. The Supreme Court is a self-correcting Agency.

The Court doesn't bind itself by the Doctrine of Stare Decisis in the Constitutional matters because it recognises that the task of interpretation of the Constitution is not static but dynamic. The Constitution is an organic document and as the shop of problems continuously goes on changing in a progressive and developing society, the Constitution must keep pace with the newly emerging problems. The view of the Supreme Court that it has power to reconsider its own previous decisions is in the line with modern of Judicial thought as in other Countries where, the Courts discharge the function of Judicial Reviews.

However, the Supreme Court doesn't lightly reconsider its earlier decisions. The Court feels that it is necessary to keep the Constitutional Certainty always by the Judicial Review in every season. Therefore, if the new circumstance demands its certainty in different circumstance too, the overruling decision of the Court over its previous ruling on the same matter is necessary and it's to be resolved. Stare Decesis is not a ritual convenience but a rule with limited exceptions.

The pronouncements by the Benches should not be treated so cavaliers as not to be revised frequently. One couldn't devalue such decisions of the Court to a brief ephemeral. Prospective overruling is a part of the Principles of Constitutional Canon of Interpretation and can be resorted to by the Court while superseding the laws declared already in earlier by the Court. It is a device innovated to avoid reopening of already settled issues, to prevent multiciplicity an avoidable litigation.

At the most, whereas the language of a statute in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction leads to a manifest construction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, to some inconvenience, or absurdity, or hardship or injustice presumably to intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence. The Court should as far as possible any decision on the interpretation of a statutory provision, rules or by laws which bring about the realty of rendering the system unworkable in practice.