The relationship between the Indian legislature and judiciary is a complex one, with instances of both tension and cooperation between the two branches of government.
One of the main sources of tension is the power of judicial review, which allows the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature. This power has led to instances of the judiciary striking down laws passed by the legislature, which has sometimes led to tension between the two branches.
For example, in 2007, the Indian Supreme Court struck down a law passed by the legislature that would have allowed the government to acquire land from farmers for industrial development without their consent. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the rights of farmers to property and due process. This decision was met with strong opposition from the government and led to protests by farmers.
However, the judiciary and legislature also work together to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens. The judiciary has the power to declare laws passed by the legislature as unconstitutional, but it also has the power to interpret laws and provide guidance on their application.
Indian Judiciary has been instrumental in ensuring the rights of marginalized communities, and in cases like “Habeas Corpus”, “Sabarimala” and “Article 377” the judiciary has played a vital role in protecting the rights of citizens and upholding the constitution.
Furthermore, the judiciary has also played a critical role in interpreting and applying laws related to issues such as corruption, human rights, and environmental protection.
Kiren Rijiju and DY Chandrachud are both prominent figures in Indian politics and law. Kiren Rijiju is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and currently serves as the Minister of Law and Justice in the Government of India. DY Chandrachud, on the other hand, is a judge on the Supreme Court of India. He was appointed to the bench in 2016.
There have been instances where the views of these two figures have clashed, particularly on issues related to the judiciary and the legislative branch. Rijiju, as a member of the ruling party and the Minister of Law, has defended the government’s position on various issues, while Chandrachud, as a judge, has ruled on cases that have been critical of the government’s actions.
For example, Rijiju has spoken out against the judiciary’s power of judicial review, which allows the courts to strike down laws passed by the legislature if they are deemed unconstitutional. He has also defended the government’s decision to bring in laws that were seen as curtailing the independence of the judiciary. On the other hand, Justice DY Chandrachud has been a vocal critic of the government’s actions and has written several judgements that have been critical of the government’s decisions, particularly on issues related to freedom of speech, privacy, and human rights.
Overall, while Rijiju and Chandrachud may have different perspectives on certain issues, both of them play an important role in the functioning of Indian democracy, with Rijiju being a lawmaker and Chandrachud being a law interpreter.
Another issue that has led to tension between the government and the judiciary is the government’s attempts to bring in laws that were seen as curtailing the independence of the judiciary. The central government has proposed several laws that would have given it more control over the appointment and transfer of judges, which the judiciary has opposed.
Additionally, there have been instances where the government has been criticized by the court for not handling certain situations in the way it should have, for example, the handling of COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath, the handling of the farmers’ protest, and the handling of the NRC and CAA laws.
Overall, while there may be instances of tension between the central government and the Supreme Court, it is important to remember that both branches play important roles in protecting the rights of citizens and upholding the rule of law. The judiciary serves as a check on the actions of the government, while the government is responsible for passing laws and implementing policies that serve the best interests of the people.
In conclusion, the tussle between the Indian legislature and judiciary is a natural outcome of the separation of powers that is fundamental to a democratic system of government. While there may be instances of tension between the two branches, it is important to remember that both the judiciary and the legislature play important roles in protecting the rights of citizens and upholding the rule of law.
Year – 2nd year
College- Amity university, Kolkata