Celebrating 75 Years of the Supreme Court of India (GS Paper 2, Judiciary)
Why in News?
- The Supreme Court of India recently marked its 75th anniversary with significant celebrations.
- The President unveiled a new flag and insignia for the Court, symbolizing its enduring role in upholding the Constitution.
- The Prime Minister also released a commemorative postage stamp to honor this milestone.
- The new flag prominently features the Ashoka Chakra, the Supreme Court building, and the Constitution of India, reflecting the Court's deep-rooted connection with the nation's founding principles and its role in maintaining them.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court's 75-Year Journey
Strengthening Democracy and Safeguarding Rights
- The Supreme Court of India has been pivotal in preserving democratic values and safeguarding individual rights since its establishment on January 26, 1950.
- It has consistently acted as the guardian of the Constitution, a protector of marginalized communities, and a critical check on governmental power.
- Its role has evolved significantly, reflecting changes in legal, social, and political landscapes.
Evolution Through Four Distinct Phases
First Phase (1950-1967): Adherence and Restraint
In its formative years, the Supreme Court adopted a conservative approach characterized by strict adherence to the constitutional text and judicial restraint. This period was marked by:
- Focus on Judicial Review: The Court was cautious about expanding its powers and limited its role to interpreting the Constitution as it was written. Judicial review was exercised to ensure legislative actions adhered to constitutional norms without overstepping boundaries.
- Avoidance of Ideological Influence: The judiciary refrained from being influenced by prevailing government ideologies, such as socialism. For example, in the Kameshwar Singh case (1952), the Court upheld the legality of the zamindari abolition but did not challenge constitutional amendments passed by Parliament.
- Respect for Legislative Supremacy: In cases like Champakam Dorairajan (1951), the Court struck down reservations in educational institutions for violating the right to equality but avoided direct confrontation with Parliament, adhering to a positivist interpretation of the Constitution.
Second Phase (1967-1976): Activism and Confrontation
This era saw a shift towards judicial activism and a more confrontational stance towards Parliament:
- Expansion of Fundamental Rights: The Golak Nath case (1967) marked a significant departure from earlier judicial restraint by ruling that Parliament could not abridge Fundamental Rights. This judgment reasserted the power of judicial review and set the stage for more expansive interpretations of rights.
- Landmark Rulings on Constitutional Amendments: The Keshavananda Bharati case (1973) introduced the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, which limited Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution. This decision underscored a growing tension between the judiciary and the executive.
- Impact of the Emergency: The Emergency period (1975-1977) significantly affected judicial independence. The ADM Jabalpur case (1976) saw the Court uphold the suspension of the right to life under Article 21, marking a low point for constitutional democracy and exposing vulnerabilities in judicial independence.
Third Phase (1978-2014): Activism and PIL Expansion
Post-Emergency, the Supreme Court sought to regain its credibility and expanded its role in promoting justice through judicial activism and PILs:
- Course Correction Post-Emergency: The Maneka Gandhi case (1978) expanded the interpretation of Article 21, thereby broadening the scope of the right to life and personal liberty. This period saw the judiciary actively working to restore its credibility and independence.
- Rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The introduction and growth of PILs allowed public-spirited individuals to bring issues of public interest to the Court. Cases like Hussainara Khatoon (1979) demonstrated how PILs could address issues like human rights, environmental protection, and governance, making justice more accessible to marginalized groups.
- Collegium System: To protect its autonomy, the judiciary established the collegium system for appointing judges. This system, though later challenged by the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was upheld by the Court to safeguard judicial independence.
Fourth Phase (2014-Present): Liberal Interpretation and Judicial Activism
In recent years, the Supreme Court has continued to play an active role in interpreting the Constitution in a liberal and progressive manner:
- Liberal Interpretation: The Court has upheld key constitutional changes, such as the abrogation of Article 370, which facilitated the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir into India. This reflects the Court’s willingness to engage with contemporary constitutional issues.
- Sustaining Judicial Activism: Despite facing criticism, the Court has continued to assert its role in protecting constitutional rights. For instance, it invalidated the opaque electoral bonds scheme and struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery, as being inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
Challenges Facing the Supreme Court
Volume of Pending Cases
- As of the end of 2023, the Supreme Court had a staggering backlog of 80,439 pending cases.
- This backlog leads to significant delays in justice delivery, undermining the efficiency and credibility of the judiciary.
- The high volume of cases not only affects the timeliness of judgments but also strains the Court's resources and impacts its ability to address pressing issues effectively.
Dominance of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs)
- SLPs, the primary means for civil and criminal appeals to the Supreme Court, dominate the Court’s docket.
- This concentration of cases impacts the Court’s ability to address a broad range of issues and leads to a disproportionate focus on certain types of cases, overshadowing other important matters.
Selective Prioritization and Judicial Evasion
- The practice of selectively prioritizing cases has led to perceptions of preferential treatment.
- High-profile cases often receive swift attention, while other significant matters may experience delays.
- This selective prioritization can undermine public confidence in the fairness of the judicial process. Additionally, "judicial evasion"—where important cases are avoided or delayed—has raised concerns about the Court's commitment to addressing crucial issues.
Integrity and Conflict of Interest
- Allegations of corruption and conflicts of interest within the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, pose challenges to its integrity.
- The resignation of Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay from the Calcutta High Court and his subsequent entry into politics highlighted potential conflicts of interest, raising questions about judicial impartiality and accountability.
Appointment of Judges
- The process of appointing judges, particularly through the collegium system, has been contentious.
- The debate over judicial appointments, including proposed reforms such as the National Judicial Appointment Commission, continues to be a significant issue.
- Ensuring a transparent and accountable appointment process is crucial for maintaining the judiciary's independence and public trust.
Way Forward
All India Judicial Recruitment
- The President has advocated for a standardized all-India recruitment process for judges to ensure consistency and quality across states.
- This approach would address regional disparities and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system.
Case Management Reforms
- Implementing advanced case management techniques, such as those proposed in the e-Courts Project, aims to digitize and automate court operations.
- These reforms can help manage and reduce the case backlog, streamline processes, and improve overall efficiency.
- Expanding the use of the Supreme Court's Case Management System (CMS) can enhance case tracking and management.
Promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Encouraging the use of ADR mechanisms, as outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, can help alleviate the burden on the Supreme Court.
- ADR methods, such as mediation and arbitration, can resolve disputes outside the Court’s purview and provide timely justice.
Transparent Case Listing
- Developing a transparent case listing and prioritization protocol can enhance public trust and accountability.
- Features such as a publicly accessible Supreme Court Portal that tracks case statuses and priorities can ensure greater transparency in the judicial process.
Strengthening Accountability
- Implementing stricter accountability measures for judges, including the establishment of an Independent Judicial Accountability Commission, could enhance the judiciary’s integrity and public confidence.
- This body could function similarly to the Central Vigilance Commission for government officials, ensuring greater oversight and accountability.
Conclusion
- In conclusion, as the Supreme Court of India celebrates 75 years of its establishment, it reflects on its significant achievements while confronting ongoing challenges.
- Embracing reforms and innovative solutions will be crucial for the Court to continue fulfilling its role as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of democratic values in India.
