Latest news with #Montesquieu
Time of India
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Experts discuss dynamics of India's constitutional democracy
Prayagraj: Dr Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj organised a national seminar on 'Constitutional Governance: Contemporary Challenges' on Saturday. During the seminar, leading voices in legal academia critically reflected on the structural tensions and evolving dynamics of India's constitutional democracy. The deliberations focused on urgent concerns — judicial corruption , the crisis of accountability, the contested process of appointment of judges, and the philosophical underpinnings of power and her introductory remarks, vice-chancellor, NLU Prayagraj, Sr Prof (Dr) Usha Tandon expressed heartfelt appreciation to all the speakers and participants. She highlighted that constitutional governance today faces significant hurdles, notably the pervasive issue of corruption within its institutions, which erodes public trust and undermines the rule of law. Operation Sindoor 'Our job is to hit target, not to count body bags': Air Marshal Bharti on Op Sindoor Precautionary blackout imposed across parts of Rajasthan, Punjab 'Indian Navy was in position to strike Karachi': Vice Admiral on Operation Sindoor The subtle or overt battle for supremacy among different branches of govt, she said, can disrupt the intended checks and balances, threatening the very foundation of constitutionalism. She also lauded the success of recent Operation Sindoor, citing it as a significant example of the country's commitment to constitutional governance, particularly in upholding national security and protecting its citizens. The chief guest of the seminar, VC, HNLU Raipur, prof V C Vivekanandan, took the discussion to a philosophical plane. Drawing from Montesquieu, Antonio Gramsci, Hiroshi Nishihara, and the Bhagavad Gita, he traced how the idea of separation of powers has traversed centuries and civilizations. His assertion that the Constitution is India's only shared 'religion' was a powerful reminder of its role in holding together a diverse and complex society. He invoked mythology to illustrate Montesquieu's idea that 'power must check power'. He elaborated that this principle is under threat in the contemporary political Devinder Singh of Panjab University, speaking virtually, brought the spotlight on the collegium system and the unresolved question of judicial appointments. His argument for re-opening the debate on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was grounded in a constitutional need for transparency and checks. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like They Lost Their Money - Learn From Their Lesson Expertinspector Click Here Undo He urged the audience to consider whether any institutional structure could ever be perfect — suggesting instead that our constitutional compass must remain the doctrine of basic structure and the rule of Uday Shankar from RGSIPL, IIT Kharagpur identified four dimensions of constitutional governance: the fragility of fundamental rights without redress, the distortion of markets by corrupt practices, the neglected model of horizontal federalism, and the creeping erosion of judicial integrity. He delved into the discussion of corruption in a constitutional democracy, emphasising not only its legal aspects but also socio-economic aspects. He called for accountable constitutional governance, pushing the audience to rethink how democratic institutions can serve people interactive session saw active engagement from students who raised thoughtful questions on the role of technology in ensuring access to justice, the need for codification of uncodified legal domains such as tort law, and the evolving nature of rights and remedies in a tech-driven society. Prof Uday Shankar responded by emphasising the transformative but cautious integration of technology in judicial processes, warning against over-mechanisation while encouraging innovation like digital filing and open court platforms. Prof Devinder Singh linked the demand for codification to legal certainty and clarity, particularly in areas like torts where ambiguity often results in inconsistent outcomes. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Mother's Day wishes , messages , and quotes !
New Indian Express
25-04-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Friction between judiciary and executive: An unhappy conversation continues
In a democracy, there is nothing unusual about a fissure between the executive and the judiciary. There could even be a healthy discourse between the two branches. Yet, the criticism of the Supreme Court's activist posture in the Tamil Nadu governor's case has attained a larger dimension. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar chose to remind the country about Montesquieu's principle of the separation of powers. To drive home his point, he criticised not only the judgement, but also Article 142 of the Constitution, which enables the court to pass orders 'for doing complete justice'. In exercise of the power, the court fixed a time limit for presidential and gubernatorial actions on bills passed by state legislatures. Being dissatisfied with this gesture, the vice president feels that the provision resembles a 'missile' available with the Supreme Court that could be used against 'democratic forces'. There is an inherent irony in labelling the 'forces' that torpedo the decisions of people's representatives at states as 'democratic'. The same irony is perpetuated when the vice president, by implication, endorses the arbitrary action or inaction of a governor. Equally fallacious is his dissatisfaction about the Supreme Court not placing the case before a Constitution bench by invoking Article 145(3). Article 142 is an indispensable device that equips the Supreme Court to determine the impact of adjudication on the ground, in concrete terms. The court cannot resolve disputes in a vacuum, or in purely theoretical or propositional terms. Judicial pragmatism is not alien to constitutional adjudication. A two-judge bench in the A G Perarivalan case (2022) ordered the release of a convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case after incarceration of about 30 years. This was done without relegating the matter again to the president, who holds pardoning power under Article 72. The court did so on finding that much time had already lapsed over communication between constitutional functionaries. In that case, the court invoked Article 142 for releasing the convict forthwith. This was done when the Tamil Nadu governor chose to sit on the state government's recommendation to release Perarivalan. The Supreme Court applies Article 142 in many other cases that are neither sensitive nor of public importance. It enables the court to decide the legal issues and meet the requirements of justice. The situations that call for invocation of the provision could be innumerable. Then there is the criticism that the Tamil Nadu case should have been referred to a Constitution bench, instead of the two-judge dealing with it. The vice president, by implication, has supported this criticism. This line of thought is unfounded for several reasons. First, there was no such request either from the petitioner's side or from the Centre's. The Centre was effectively represented by the attorney general, who placed all possible contentions before the bench. Secondly, given the number of Constitution bench matters pending before the Supreme Court, the possibility for an early decision in the case is bleak. In all probability, by the time a Constitution bench decides the case, the tenure of the assembly would end, which would practically nullify the whole exercise. This would result in aborting the bills passed by the elected representatives, due to gubernatorial and judicial lethargy. Thus, the reference argument lacks practical wisdom. Thirdly, and more importantly, the matter did not raise questions of interpretation of any substantial provisions of the Constitution. True, it warranted an interpretive exercise on Article 200 dealing with the duties of the governor and Article 201 dealing with the president's powers on bills passed by state legislatures. The court's interpretive exercise was, essentially, on the procedural aspects in the provision, and not on any sustentative part of the articles. Even the fixing of a time limit for high constitutional functionaries was essentially procedural. The meaning of these provisions was not a matter of serious controversy in the case. The power of judicial review vested with constitutional courts is a basic feature of India's Constitution. It is unalterable, even by a legislative majority. In India, a strong executive has often faced a 'weaker' judiciary. On the other hand, the judiciary has at times appeared stronger to a 'weaker' executive. The relationship between the court and parliament or the executive has been dialectical and asymmetrical in history. It started with the Golak Nath case (1967), where the Supreme Court endorsed the court's power to review the laws made by parliament that infringe on the citizen's fundamental rights. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the court asserted against legislative majoritarianism by holding that even parliament cannot pass a law damaging the basic structure of the Constitution. Thereafter, a mighty executive under Indira Gandhi blatantly interfered with the affairs of the judiciary even in the case of elevations, transfers and postings. During the Emergency (1975-77), the phrase 'committed judiciary' was synonymous with a fragile system that played a subservient role to the executive, failing to carry out its functions as the guardian of the Constitution. After the Emergency, the Supreme Court tried to assert itself as a powerful court, evolving devices like public interest litigations and social action litigations. Yet, the friction went on. When a constitutional amendment was made for replacing the collegium system, the court stalled it by a majority judgement in 2015. The verdict aggravated the friction between the two branches, often leading to the Centre sitting on proposals for judicial appointments for months or years together. When the vice president invoked the alleged transgression of powers against the background of the Tamil Nadu judgement, it clearly lacked a formidable foundation. Given the governor's moves, the Supreme Court was bound to act in time, upholding the rights and privileges of state legislative bodies. Alexander Hamilton, one of the drafters of the US Constitution, famously described the judiciary as the 'least dangerous' branch, hinting at the more dangerous executive. When a high constitutional functionary criticises the highest court and its directives, and the text of constitutional provisions based on the idea of checks and balances, it sends an unpleasant message to our democracy. No individual is above the law under our constitutional scheme. The judgement in the Tamil Nadu case underscores this democratic principle. (Views are personal) (kaleeswaramraj@ Kaleeswaram Raj | Lawyer, Supreme Court of India
