Judiciairy v/s Governance
What is Governance?
Governance is defined as “the process of decision making and such process by which those decision are implemented”
When the constitution was framed, it divided the governance of India in the hands of 3 autonomous bodies namely legislature, executive and judiciary. Both were assigned different functions, while maintaining a system of checks and balance on each other.
When the constitution was framed, its drafting committee chairman, Dr. B.R. Ambebkar said that “I feel that the Constitution is workable; it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peacetime and in wartime. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that Man was vile.”
Thus, the constitution was drafted keeping in mind the delegation and diffusion of powers, in order to maintain balance between good governance and power. It was also expected that the constitution would hold a balance between the three organs and would certainly move from a document worthy of admiration to a solid commitment on the part of the power holders.
But, had the constitution worked in the way it was supposed to?
The term “judicial governance” in itself is vague, as judiciary was not subjected to governance in the original drafted constitution, nor it was to be held accountable for bad governance. However, with each day passing by, judiciary felt its need to become protector of citizens rights rather than becoming a silent spectator.
Importance of Judicial Governance
With more and more power being given to the executive to govern the country, the basic structure of the constitution to divide the power was being held at the mercy of executive.
However, with Supreme Court taking active part in the judicial governance and with time and again commenting on increasing the scope of judicial governance, it was hoped that the object of judicial governance was finally going to be fulfilled. As any policy is subject to criticism, it was also criticized in the parliament, which posted critical challenges for the judiciary.
Even with harsh criticism being faced by the Supreme Court, it took the same stand as being taken by the US Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison, wherein the court developed implied limitations on the powers of the political branch that is analogous to the U.S. judiciary’s approach to the separation of powers.
It is often told that the basic feature of civil society is to provide little guidance and help to the aspiring citizens, who are trying to achieve their basic rights. With the aim of achieving basic rights, it is often felt that all the civil societies needs to seek good governance in order to promote and protect such human rights.
However, given the injustices that have embraced our society, induction of judiciary in governance was felt as the need of the hour.
Keeping this view in mind, Supreme Court quoted with approval the principles of Lord Nolan Committee in the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India. The principles were given under the head “Standards of Public Life” and were:
- Selflessness;
- Integrity;
- Objectivity;
- Accountability;
- Openness;
- Honesty;
- And, Leadership.
It was held by the Supreme Court that “These principles of public life are of general application …and one is expected to bear them in mind while scrutinizing the conduct of every holder of a public office….If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated.”
Role of Judiciary in Governance under Constitution
Article 10: Objectives of Judiciary
Under this Article the main objectives of framing the Supreme Court were:
- To ensure security and basic rights guaranteed to all the citizens under the rule of law;
- To not only ensure safety of human rights, but promote them at the same time, within the proper limits of the judicial function;
- And, finally to administer the impartiality in law between various person and between a person and state.
With the main motto being of the constitution being “equality before law and equal protection of law”, another article for judicial governance was Article 33.
Article 33: Jurisdiction
This article clarified the jurisdiction of the judiciary and states that “the judiciary must have jurisdiction over all issues of a justiciable nature and exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law.”
The most recent case of judicial governance was seen in the case of PIL v. Union of India, wherein Supreme Court quashed the appointment of Chief Vigilance Commissioner, stating the ground of “impeccable integrity”. The selected officer was named an accused in a pending criminal case for corruption against him.
CONCLUSION
Thus, when the powers of the three organs were divided, the need was felt to not only divide those powers but also provide means to each organ to exercise those powers. However, it was mostly, if not always, felt that judiciary lacked those means as the legislature and executive were overturning its every decision.
But, with Supreme Court realizing its necessity of governance, various decisions have come to light, which only aims at Supreme Court increasing its powers to ensure good governance.
However, Supreme Court still lacks behind, in terms of governance and good governance is far from perfect in India.