Judicial Discretion In Balancing Political Objectives And Constitutional Principles: An Examination Of Precedents Like State Of Rajasthan V. Union Of India In The Context Of Indian Federalism

Vatsal & Vedant Singh, Jindal Global Law School, India.

ABSTRACT

This paper offers a qualitative examination of India's evolving constitutional dynamics, touching upon the intricate relationship between courts and the Political Question Doctrine, as well as the nuances of Article 356 in the nation's federal landscape. Drawing insights from judicial opinions, including those of Justices KK Mathew, YV Chandrachud, and Bhagwati. The research spans the doctrine's varied applications in diverse constitutional systems, concentrating on its nuanced positioning within the Indian context, while juxtaposing it against landmark verdicts such as State of Rajasthan v. Union of India. Emphasizing the limited role of the Political Question Doctrine in India. Simultaneously, the study delves into the transformation from the unitary framework under British rule to the contemporary federal structure, underscored by the impact of regional parties, key judicial decisions, and constitutional provisions. Key moments, such as the Sarkaria Commission's findings, President K.R. Narayanan's actions, and shifts post- 1967, are central to this discourse. Throughout, two interpretative paradigms emerge "originalism" which emphasizes central authority in line with the framers' intent, and the adaptive "living constitutionalism" reflecting changing socio-political realities.2 The research encapsulates India's quest to harmonize centralized imperatives with regional aspirations while safeguarding constitutional mandates against strictly political considerations.