Representative image signifying the Indian judiciary
Credit: iStock Photo
In the vibrant democracy of India, the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature has long been a subject of fascination and debate. Recent years have seen an increasingly dynamic interplay between these two pillars of democracy, with judicial verdicts significantly influencing legislative reforms.
This trend has reshaped India's legal landscape, often pushing the boundaries of traditional lawmaking processes. At the forefront of this judicial-legislative dance is the Supreme Court of India, which has frequently stepped in to fill legislative gaps.
Recently, the Supreme Court declared that the principle ‘bail is a rule, and jail an exception’ would apply for cases under the PMLA Act as well while it had last month also held the same principle for UAPA. Such an application of the principle while having been spoken of earlier in various legal forums, its application in two matters within the same month of August has led to the judiciary walking the talk. This judicial pronouncement could see precedence of this principle being applied for seeking relief from the court in similar matters in coming days thereby impacting bail jurisprudence.
Another prime example is the landmark Vishaka case of 1997, where the court issued guidelines on sexual harassment in workplaces. These guidelines effectively served as law for 15 years until Parliament passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act in 2013. Similarly, in the absence of comprehensive legislation on inter-country adoptions, the court provided guidelines in the Lakshmi Kant Pandey case, demonstrating its proactive role in addressing legal vacuums.
Beyond filling the gaps
The judiciary's influence extends beyond gap-filling, often catalysing legislative action. The court's introduction of the collegium system for judicial appointments in the second and third judges cases prompted legislative attempts to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission. Although this effort did not succeed, it illustrates how judicial decisions can spur legislative initiatives.
Constitutional interpretation by the judiciary has been another powerful driver of legislative reforms. The Supreme Court's expansive reading of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, has led to the recognition of various implied rights. This judicial expansion of constitutional rights has had far-reaching implications for lawmaking, compelling legislators to craft laws that protect these newly recognised rights.
In shaping policy directions, the judiciary has played a crucial role that often culminates in legislation. For instance, in the Prakash Singh case, the apex court issued directives to state governments regarding police reforms, influencing subsequent state-level legislation. Similarly, judicial directions on curbing acid sales to prevent attacks have shaped both policy and legislation in this area.
The power of judicial review has been a potent tool in prompting legislative reforms. By striking down unconstitutional laws or provisions, the judiciary has forced legislators back to the drawing board. A notable example is the invalidation of Section 66A of the IT Act, which sparked discussions on new legislation to regulate online speech while respecting constitutional freedoms.
The judiciary has also influenced reforms by providing interim measures through guidelines until appropriate laws are enacted. This approach was evident in the case of passive euthanasia, where the court provided guidelines to fill the legislative void temporarily.
In addressing pressing social issues, judicial interventions have often paved the way for legislative action. Judgments on honour killings, for instance, have fuelled discussions on specific legislation to combat this social evil. The 2014 National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) judgment, recognising transgender rights, was instrumental in the creation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Environmental protection is another arena where judicial verdicts have significantly shaped legislation and policy.
Landmark judgments, far-reaching impact
The judiciary's role in electoral reforms has been particularly noteworthy. In the case of the Association for Democratic Reforms, the courtmandated the disclosure of candidates' antecedents, leading to significant changes in election laws. This judicial intervention has enhanced transparency and accountability in India's electoral process.
The development of the 'basic structure' doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, has fundamentally shaped the limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. This doctrine continues to profoundly influence legislative processes and constitutional amendments.
Recent years have seen several landmark judgments with far-reaching legislative implications. The Navtej Singh Johar case of 2018, which decriminalised homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, paved the way for more inclusive policies for the LGBTQ+ community. Similarly, Shayara Bano verdict in 2017, declaring the practice of instant triple talaq unconstitutional, led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
Voicing concerns
The judiciary's influence on legislation is not limited to recent times. The SP Gupta case of 1981, emphasising transparency and accountability in governance, contributed significantly to the framing of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Indra Sawhney case of 1992 laid down the basis for reservations in public employment and education, which was later expanded to include Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019.
However, this judicial activism has not been without controversy. Critics argue that judicial legislation sometimes oversteps the separation of powers, with the judiciary encroaching on the legislature's domain. There have been instances where both the executive and legislature have voiced concerns about perceived judicial overreach.
Despite these criticisms, the impact of judicial verdicts on legislative reforms in India remains significant and multifaceted. From the Right to Education Act, 2009, to the Right to Information Act influenced by earlier Supreme Court judgments, judicial decisions have consistently shaped India's legal landscape.
As India continues to evolve as a democracy, the role of judicial verdicts in influencing legislative reforms is likely to remain a key feature of its governance process. This dynamic interplay between the judiciary and legislature, though sometimes contentious, has largely contributed to the evolution of a more robust and rights-oriented legal system in India.
The influence of judicial verdicts on legislative reforms in India is a testament to the country's living constitution and the adaptability of its democratic institutions. While the primary responsibility for lawmaking rests with the legislature, the judiciary's role in interpreting the Constitution, filling legislative gaps, and addressing social issues has been crucial in shaping India's legal framework.
As India faces new challenges in an increasingly complex world, this judicial-legislative dialogue will undoubtedly continue to play a vital role in shaping the nation's laws and policies. The ongoing interplay between these two pillars of democracy ensures that India's legal system remains responsive to the evolving needs of its diverse society, even as it raises important questions about the balance of power in a constitutional democracy.
(Sasmit Patra is national spokesperson, Biju Janata Dal, and a Rajya Sabha MP. X: @sasmitpatra.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.