What happens when a gavel meets the microphone? What do the voices of those who have interpreted the law and guided its course in India sound like? This was explored in a seminar organized by OP Jindal Global University and Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas on “The Role Of Judiciary In Protecting The Rule Of Law & Promoting Access To Justice”.
According to Uday Umesh Lalit, former Supreme Court Judge of India, “Marbury v Madison has been one of the greatest milestones in the history of the judiciary all over the world. But, the Indian judiciary has gone way beyond this. Our concept of judicial review doesn’t stop at striking down executive action. It goes well beyond that; not just striking down statute law, but the Indian Supreme Court has struck down even constitutional amendments”.
“India is a young nation that’s just 75 years old. Our judiciary is still in its nascent stages, but it’s a robust judiciary which is emerging and which is willing to take challenges. After Marbury v Madison, I think the greatest pinnacle would be striking down something which was a constitutional amendment dealing with the appointment of judges. India is, perhaps, the only country where the judges appoint their own successors. The Executive has a much smaller role in selecting judges, because we believe in the independence of the judiciary to such an extent that we don’t even want executive interference in selecting the judges. So, that’s the extent to which these concepts have been actually taken and matured and have been integrated into our jurisprudence”, adds Lalit.
According to Swatanter Kumar, former Supreme Court Judge of India, “The rule of law is a subject, which has been very controversial, not only in our country, but across the globe. In India, Article 14 provides for equality before law and equal protection of law. The purpose of the judiciary is, primarily, to interpret the law. While interpreting the law, more often than not, the Indian Supreme Court has been criticized for so-called judicial activism.”
“In my humble opinion, judicial activism is neither fundamentally wrong nor objectively wrong; it is to be understood in the concept of judicial creativity. The law originates from social norms of a society, therefore, judges should be given their due for expanding the law by way of creativity… I would say that the Indian Judiciary has not been there for a very long time, in comparative terms, to developed countries. But, the Judiciary in India is not controlled by anyone, unlike the UK or the USA, where statutory principles control the jurisdiction. The Constitution and the Supreme Court said that the basic structure of the constitution can’t be touched, which was not an easy judgement to give… The rule of law clearly says that there should be an inexpensive and expeditious justice system. In India, every ‘taluka’ has a court, so that the everyday person, even from the most deserted part of the country, could have access to justice”, adds Kumar.
Watch the entire interaction here:
