Judicial powers of the Supreme Court of India

 Judicial powers

 Answer:

      The Supreme Court of India is at the top of India's integral justice system.  The Indian Supreme Court has to act simultaneously as a federal court, as the Supreme Court of Appeal, as an advisor to the President, as a guardian of the Constitution and as a defender of fundamental rights.  The Supreme Court of India is more powerful than any other Supreme Court in the world.

 1) Role as a Federal Court: - The Supreme Court of India has been entrusted with the responsibility of resolving disputes over the distribution of power between the Center and the States in India.  The Constitution of India recognizes this power as the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  However, in reality, the Supreme Court is not seen to play a significant role in this regard, as the Center-State dispute is mostly resolved through dialogue.

 Court of Appeals

 2) Role as Court of Appeal: - The judgment of any court in India other than the Military Court Tribunal can be appealed to the Supreme Court against the final order.  The Supreme Court is the highest appellate court in any case relating to civil, criminal, constitutional interpretation.  The appellate area of ​​the U.S. Supreme Court is not so extensive;  This is because the appellate area of ​​the US Supreme Court is limited to constitutional matters only.

 3) Role as Advisor to the President: - Article 143 (1) of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court may advise the President on any complex question of law or information if the President seeks the advice of the Supreme Court.  This power of consultation has advised on various issues like Kerala Education Bill of 1957, Transfer of Berubari in 1959, Rehabilitation Bill of Jammu and Kashmir of 1982 etc.  Currently, the main advisory area of ​​the Supreme Court has become particularly significant.

 Guardian of the Constitution

     

 4) Role as Guardian of the Constitution: - The Supreme Court plays an important role as guardian and interpreter of the Indian Constitution.  The Supreme Court can judge whether a directive of a law and governance department of the law department is unconstitutional and if it is unconstitutional, it can declare it null and void.  The power of the Supreme Court is known as the power of "departmental review."

   It should be noted, however, that the judicial review power of the Indian Supreme Court is not as extensive as that of the US Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court, exercising this power by the "due process of law", can judge not only the procedural aspect of the law but also the excellence of the law.  That is, the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the law is contrary to normal justice or reasonable.  The Indian Supreme Court, on the other hand, is only entitled to conduct proceedings by the "law-specific procedure".  The Supreme Court of India only decides whether a law has violated certain limits of the Constitution.  The Indian Supreme Court does not have the power to judge whether that law is just or reasonable.

    In addition to the above limitations, the Supreme Court of India has to complete this judicial review within a few other limitations.  As the Indian Constitution is subject to change, Parliament can easily amend the Constitution and invalidate the judgment of the Supreme Court.  Parliament, for example, nullified the judgment of the Golkanath case given by the Supreme Court in 1967 through the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.  During the rule of Rajiv Gandhi, the Supreme Court's verdict in the historic Shahbanu case was overturned bypassing Muslim Sharia law.  Article 5 of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which was passed by Parliament in 1976, states that a court cannot judge the legitimacy of a law enacted by Parliament to implement a directive policy.  However, the Supreme Court overturned the clause in the 1980 Minerva Mills case.

  For these reasons, the Supreme Court of India has not been able to exercise the power and dignity of the US Supreme Court as the interpreter and protector of the Constitution.  So it is not as weak as the British judiciary.  Parliament cannot repeal any law establishing the sovereignty of the British Parliament.  The position of the Indian Supreme Court is between the United States and Britain.

 Defender of fundamental rights

 5) Role as a defender of fundamental rights: - Protecting civil rights in the federal system is a special responsibility of the federal court.  The Constitution of India has vested this power and responsibility in the hands of the Supreme Court.  Article 32 of the Constitution states that the Supreme Court can issue 5 types of articles to enforce fundamental rights, namely: 1) habeas corpus 2) decree 3) prohibition 4) questioning of rights and 5) extortion.

   Article 13 of the Constitution states that any law enacted in violation of fundamental rights will be repealed.  This right means that the Supreme Court has at various times repealed various anti-fundamental rights laws and has thus played an important role in upholding fundamental rights.  For example, the Supreme Court repealed Sections 5 and 55 of the Banking Nationalization Act of 1969, the President's Order on the State Allowance Bill of 1970, and the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution Act of 1976.

  In this context, it should be kept in mind that the Supreme Court's view on anti-fundamental rights laws has not been uniform.  For example, in the Shankarprasad case in 1952, in the Sajjan Singh case in 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights could be amended.  Parliament has no right to revoke fundamental rights as the Supreme Court changed its mind in the 1967 Golkanath case.  In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental rights in the Keshbananda Bharati case deserved to be amended.  Contradictory rulings have left many sceptical of the Supreme Court's role in protecting fundamental rights.

 The new role of the Supreme Court

 6) Recent role of the Supreme Court: - Recently, a new role has been seen in the Supreme Court.  Earlier, filing cases in the Supreme Court and other courts was complicated and costly.  As a result, the common man must have been deprived of justice.  But in December 1981, S.  Hon'ble Justice of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Gupta.  N.  Bhagwati gave a landmark verdict.  And since then, the role of the judiciary has changed dramatically.  The verdict, in that case, relaxed the legal complexities of the public interest litigation and provided for cost reduction.  Such lawsuits are called public interest litigation or public interest litigation.

  The Supreme Court has overturned the directives of many undemocratic law and order departments in this birth interest case.  Solved a variety of social problems and benefited many ordinary and deprived people.  For example, in July 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the death penalty for those convicted of homicide.  In addition, the Supreme Court in 1986 stood up for the starving people in the Kalahandi region of Orissa with the noble cause of social welfare.

  However, in the name of this public interest litigation, the Supreme Court is currently dealing with so many issues that many have criticized as judicial over-activism.  The Supreme Court is currently seen to be ordering environmental pollution control, garbage removal, protection of monuments, widening of roads, etc.  In all cases where the welfare of the people is not taken into consideration, for example, when a court orders the closure of a factory for environmental pollution, it is unthinkable that many workers will lose their jobs and suffer indescribably.  Renowned lawyer and MP Somnath Chatterjee said, "The job of the judiciary is not to make laws, but to enforce them."  Expressing concern over judicial activism, Justice Sedley remarked, "Judicial Activities Menace to the Rule of Law."