Judiciary Must Bend The Rules
- IJLLR Journal
- Dec 17, 2024
- 1 min read
Pranav Das, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar
ABSTRACT
This paper interrogates the dynamic interplay between constitutional adjudication and the doctrine of separation of powers, with particular emphasis on the Indian judiciary’s interpretative latitude under Article 32 of the Constitution. It situates its inquiry within the jurisprudential tensions of judicial activism versus restraint, exploring the Supreme Court’s prerogative to expand the ambit of fundamental rights in response to evolving societal imperatives. The discourse reflects upon landmark constitutional debates and seminal judgements to underscore the judiciary’s dual mandate: safeguarding individual liberties while maintaining the structural integrity of democratic governance. By dissecting the judiciary’s engagement with issues of arbitrariness under Article 14 and its nuanced application of the doctrine of classification, the analysis critiques the reductionist approaches that confine judicial review to procedural formalities. Instead, it advocates for a jurisprudential ethos that privileges substantive justice, recognising the Constitution’s activist and protean character. Additionally, the paper interrogates the inherent limitations of legislative and executive inertia, positing that judicial intervention, albeit judicious and restrained, remains indispensable for the realisation of constitutional guarantees. The examination of recent adjudications, such as those concerning the recognition of same-sex unions, exemplifies the judiciary’s reluctance to traverse doctrinal rigidity, even in the face of compelling demands for justice. Contrasting majority and dissenting opinions, the paper elucidates the need for a recalibrated interpretative framework that harmonises judicial discretion with constitutional principles. Ultimately, this reflective exploration contends that a reimagined separation of powers, tempered by pragmatism and responsiveness to societal exigencies, can reinforce the judiciary’s role as a sentinel of constitutionalism and a harbinger of transformative justice.
