scholarly journals The Supreme Court of India: A People’s Court?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sital Kalantry
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Common People ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Rich ◽  
To Come

The Supreme Court of India has long been thought of as a court for the common people. This perception is rooted in the Indian constitution, which grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear cases alleging violation of fundamental rights. The Court has also embraced this vision of its role, and conceives of itself as an institution of “last resort for the oppressed and bewildered.” In a judgment from 1987, it expressly notes that it gives greater access to certain marginalized groups:this Court has always regarded the poor and the disadvantaged as entitled to preferential consideration than the rich and the affluent, the businessmen and the industrialists. The reason is that the weaker sections of Indian humanity have been deprived of justice for long, long years: they have had no access to justice on account of their poverty, ignorance and illiteracy. . . . The majority of the people of our country are subjected to this denial of access to justice and, overtaken by despair and helplessness, they continue to remain victims of an exploitative society where economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few and it is used for perpetuation of domination over large masses of human beings. This court has always, therefore, regarded it as its duty to come to the rescue of these deprived and vulnerable sections of Indian humanity in order to help them realise their economic and social entitlements and to bring to an end their oppression and exploitation.The Court’s self-conscious pro-poor discursion is most evident in its public interest jurisprudence, through which the Court removed many procedural barriers to accessing the Court; and assumed wide ranging remedial powers to ameliorate a range of socio-economic injustices.

scholarly journals Public Interest Litigation: A Conceptual Framework

2010 ◽  
pp. 85-89
Author(s):  
Manas Ranjan Samantaray ◽  
Mritunjay Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Public Interest Litigation ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

Public interest litigation (PIL) has a vital role in the civil justice system in that it could achieve those objectives which could hardly be achieved through conventional private litigation.PIL, for instance, offers a ladder to justice to disadvantaged sections of society, provides an avenue to enforce diffused or collective rights, and enables civil society to not only spread awareness about human rights but also allows them to participate in government decision making. PIL could also contribute to good governance by keeping the government accountable. This article will show, with reference to the Indian experience, that PIL could achieve these important objectives. However, the Indian PIL experience also shows us that it is critical to ensure that PIL does not become a facade to fulfil private interests, settle political scores or gain easy publicity. Judiciary in a democracy should also not use PIL as a device to run the country on a day-today basis or enter the legitimate domain of the executive and legislature. The challenge for states, therefore, is to strike a balance in allowing legitimate PIL cases and discouraging frivolous ones. One way to achieve this balance could be to build in economic (dis)incentives in PIL and also confine it primarily to those cases where access to justice is undermined by some kind of disability. Judiciary, being the sentinel of constitutional statutory rights of citizens has a special role to play in the constitutional scheme. It can review legislation and administrative actions or decisions on the anvil of constitutional law. For the enforcement of fundamental rights one has to move the Supreme Court or the High Court’s directly by invoking Writ Jurisdiction of these courts. But the high cost and complicated procedure involved in litigation, however, makes equal access to jurisdiction in mere slogan in respect of millions of destitute and underprivileged masses stricken by poverty, illiteracy and ignorance. The Supreme Court of India pioneered the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) thereby throwing upon the portals of courts to the common man. Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of private vested interests. Litigation in those days consisted mainly of some action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing their own grievances/problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured person or the aggrieved party. However, these entire scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme Court of India led the concept of public interest litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in the country and the newly formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access to the law and introduced in their work a broad public interest perspective.

Scandalizing the judiciary: An analysis of the uneven response of the Supreme Court of India to sexual harassment allegations against judges

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 563-590
Author(s):  
Sanjay Jain ◽  
Saranya Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Harassment ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Systematic Pattern

Abstract The Supreme Court of India (SC) pronounced a momentous judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan in 1997, categorically recognizing the menace of sexual harassment (SH) at workplace and constitutionally rendering it as being in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India 1950. The Court also provided a mechanism for redressal against SH, which was ultimately reinforced by Parliament with the enactment of Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (POSH Act). However, when it comes to allegations of SH against judges in the SC and High Courts by its employees, interns, or lower court judges, the response of the SC has been abysmal to say the least. There is a systematic pattern to suggest foul play and conspiracy in each such allegation, and judges, including even the Chief Justice of India (CJI), have not hesitated to openly indulge in victim-shaming and-blaming. In other words, the court has not been able to uphold its own jurisprudence on sexual harassment, which it expects to be scrupulously adhered to by other organs of the state. It is submitted that in not supporting the cause of victims alleging SH against judges, the other organs of the state are also party to this constitutional decay and serious infraction of fundamental rights. It leads us to ask the question, how can we guard against the guardians?

scholarly journals Regional Benches of the Supreme Court of India - The Path Ahead

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-74
Author(s):  
Sankalp Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Wide Access ◽  
Law Commission

There is a need for the establishment of regional benches of the Supreme Court. By the analysis of various statistical data, the paper puts forward the urgent need for widening the reach of the Supreme Court and also to rejuvenate and reestablish the tarnishing reputation of the Supreme Court as an ordinary court of appeal. The paper explores the essential reasons for the establishment of benches of Supreme Court that can be broadly divided into three heads namely (i) wide access to justice (ii) Supreme Court reduced to an ordinary court of appeal (iii) litigation as a measure of well-being. The paper also analyses the recommendations laid out in the 95th, 120th, 125th and 229th Law Commission reports and analyses problem in hand, on the basis of analysis and the immediate need for the reform of the judicial system.

scholarly journals Concept of right to life and its protection under the Constitution of India

2019 ◽  
pp. 55-68
Author(s):  
HARSH PATHAK
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Original Sense ◽  
Life Itself ◽  
The Right

The constitution and jurist characterized Article 21 as, “the procedural magna carta, protective of life and liberty”. This right has been held to be the heart of the constitution, the most organic and progressive provision in Indian constitution, the foundation of our laws. Article 21 can only be claimed when a person is deprived of his “life” or “personal liberty” by the “State” as defined in Article 12. Violation of the right by private individuals is not within the preview of it. Article 21 applies to natural persons. The right is available to every person, citizen or alien. It, however, does not entitle a foreigner the right to reside and settle in India, as mentioned in Article 19 (1) (e). Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. The right to life is undoubtedly the most fundamental of all rights. All other rights add quality to the life in question and depend on the pre-existence of life itself for their operation. There would have been no fundamental rights worth mentioning if Article 21 had been interpreted in its original sense. This Article will examine the right to life as interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court of India.

scholarly journals Evolution and Exercise of the Power of Judicial Review of Executive Actions in Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Rao Imran Habib
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The People ◽  
Political Interests ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
One Step

In the modern democracies the protection of fundamental rights has gained immense importance. The fundamental rights are guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic states. The courts are empowered through the power of judicial review to protect fundamental rights against any violations of these. The concept of judicial review of executive actions emerged from the concept that the powerful executive can jeopardize the rights of the people for their political interests and there should be an independent forum to check the abuses of the human rights by the executive. In the modern era the power of judicial review has proceeded one step further as, in addition to the violation of fundamental rights, it has started examining the issues of good governance and disputes between state organs. Pakistan inherited the idea of judicial review of executive actions from the supervisory jurisdiction of English Courts to issue prerogative writs. Subsequently, Pakistan specifically incorporated the judicial review powers in the 1962 Constitution. The provincial high courts and the Supreme Court are entrusted with the power of judicial review; however, the Supreme Court can adjudicate upon matters of fundamental rights if they involve public importance. This research work examines the importance of judicial review of executive actions for the protections of fundamental rights. Then the evolution and exercise of judicial review of executive actions by the higher courts in Pakistan is analysed. This study finds that the superior courts in Pakistan have actively used this power to protect fundamental rights but in their drive to protect fundamental rights sometimes they have encroached into the jurisdiction of the other state institutions.

‘Using’ Crisis of Governance as an Opportunity for ‘Re-invention’: Why the Supreme Court of India Took To Hearing Public Interest Litigations—A Case Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-223
Author(s):  
Subrata Biswas
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Positive Role ◽  
Indian Politics ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

What do the different State organs do when they face a crisis? Do the suffering institutions successfully re-invent themselves or is it that some other institution uses the crisis to find an ‘opportunity’ to re-invent itself? Can one’s crisis be another’s opportunity? This case-study analyses how the Supreme Court of India (hereinafter SCI) reinvented itself in a bid to further the cause of good governance in the country ever since emergency had been clamped on the nation towards the end of 1970s. Surely there has been a crisis of governance in India, caused by the pathetic performance of both the legislature and the executive. It has led to myriad problems in both social and political arenas. If left unaddressed, Indian people might have turned more violent than they already are and that could have perpetrated a failure of democracy in the country. But the SCI has successfully played a positive role in this regard. If the other institutions have failed the people, the Supreme Court has championed their cause. The world’s largest democracy stands saved until now. But is it wholly the judges’ heartfelt concern for the people that has prompted the Supreme Court to function in this fashion? Did anything go wrong during the emergency? Why is it that it has been more and more active ever since the emergency ended? And why is it that there has been an exponential growth in public interest litigations (hereinafter PILs) in the Supreme Court even though it cannot handle so many cases because of infrastructural paucities? Situating itself in the specific context of PILs entertained by the SCI and supporting it with the theoretical inputs of the so-called ‘principal-agent framework’, this essay argues that there has been a competition (i.e., between the court and the elected politicians) for ‘occupying’ more space in the domain of governance since the inception of the Constitution and it is only the Supreme Court that got the right ‘opportunity’ to achieve its objective in the wake of crisis in governance that became so visible in Indian politics ever since the fag-end of the 1970s. While the court tried other instruments earlier in its game plan vis-a-vis the elected politicians, the crisis situation since the end of the 1970s made it ‘invent’ a new tool in the form of PILs capable of safeguarding the interests of the people and insulating them against the mindless functioning of multiple state agencies. But how far can the SCI (hereinafter SCI) proceed with this new tool? Is there a risk of ‘overusing’ it? Does the court not have its own limitations in this regard, too? What should the Supreme Court do in order to avert a fresh ‘crisis’?

scholarly journals Right to Environment and Right to Development: A Judicial Conundrum

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-68
Author(s):  
Uday Shankar ◽  
Saurabh Bindal
Keyword(s):  
Basic Structure ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Free Environment ◽  
The Right

Pollution free environment is indispensible for the inhabitants of this planet. The Supreme Court of India taking cognizance of the same in its judicial creativity has accorded the right to live in a pollution free environment the status of a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, right to development places human beings at the centre of development casting an obligation on the state to ensure the benefits of development to the citizenry. Interestingly, both right to environment and right to development draw their genesis from Article 21 of the Constitution. Such affirmation of rights necessarily presents a question of compliance by the state. This paper traces the origin of right to environment and right to development in the larger context of the fundamental rights. It critically examines the usefulness of declaration of these rights under the scheme of the Constitution. It argues that the judiciary in its judicial creativity has made unreasonable interference into the matters reserved for the executive which is not in accordance with the basic structure of the Constitution. The paper calls for maintenance of harmony between the two organs of the state.

scholarly journals An Intergenerational Ecological Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court of Colombia and the Rights of the Amazon Rainforest

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-44
Author(s):  
Alessandro Pelizzon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Amazon Rainforest ◽  
Health Food ◽  
Healthy Environment ◽  
Deforestation Rates ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Ontological Shift ◽  
To Come

In 2017, 25 young Colombians, aged 15 to 25, filed the first climate change and future generations lawsuit in Latin America (the Amazon case). Assisted by the organisation Dejusticia, the young plaintiffs filed an accion de tutela—a special mechanism under the Colombian Constitution that allows individuals to demand the protection of their fundamental rights. The plaintiffs argued that the current deforestation rates and their destructive consequences were violating their future right to a healthy environment. Remarkably, the Supreme Court of Colombia, in which the action was filed, ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, granting their petition and guaranteeing their right to enjoy a healthy environment, as well as their future rights to life, health, food and water. To enforce its judgment, the Court ordered that the Colombian Government formulate an action plan and an intergenerational pact to protect the Amazon. Most importantly, the court went beyond the grounds raised by the plaintiffs and recognised the Amazon rainforest as a subject of rights. Located within a growing network of constitutional, legislative and judicial initiatives in a growing number of jurisdictions, the Amazon case is but one example of the emergence of a novel ecological jurisprudence that is emerging around the globe. The Amazon case is particularly emblematic, as it reveals a profound ontological shift among younger generations, for whom a purely anthropocentric worldview appears to be increasingly representative of an untenable sense of alienation. The Amazon case also creates hope for a world in which an ecological jurisprudence is at the core of the current intergenerational discourse, the focus of which appears to be the global reconceptualisation of our collective self for generations to come.

scholarly journals A New Dawn? Statelessness and Assam

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-111
Author(s):  
Regina Menachery Paulose
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Robust Solutions ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Government ◽  
International Refugee Law

This article explores the ongoing crisis of statelessness that has been created because of a petition made by the people of Assam, India to update the electoral rolls in the state. As a result of the process, which has been approved by the Supreme Court of India, an estimated 4 million people have become stateless. The government has stated that these 4 million people risk deportation back to Bangladesh. This article will briefly examine the history of the situation that has unfolded in Assam; discuss the role of statelessness and how it may lead to genocide, underscoring the importance to act and find robust solutions. Finally, the author will conclude by discussing potential actions that India should take in order to resolve future cases of statelessness, specifically examining the Global Compact on Refugees and other instruments provided for within international refugee law. 

Galvanisation of the Right to Development within the Shared Constitutional Space in India

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-299
Author(s):  
Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
New Horizons ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

This article accentuates the concept of the right to development (rtd) and focuses on the various facets of rtd as developed by the Supreme Court of India in its multiple pronouncements since the advent of the last decade of the 20th century. The apex court, through a conjoint reading of various aspects provided in the Constitution’s Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties with the Declaration on rtd has interpreted various cases that have opened new horizons of curative developmental jurisprudence in India. The main aim of this study is to capture the various trends and directions of discourse on rtd and explore the constitutional space for rtd in India. This article also evaluates the impact that Declaration of rtd has had on the Supreme Court of India and to what extent has the Supreme Court of India galvanised rtd to provide remedies to millions of Indians. The article emphasises the holistic view taken by the Supreme Court in matters of private rights versus the developmental rights of millions. Another significant aspect of rtd that has been emphasised in this article is the conflict between human rights of the marginalised group with the burgeoning rtd. The discourse on economic growth and rtd within the constitutional space will remain in the heart of politicians, social scientists and the populace in the coming years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document