Legislature can enact new law, cannot over directly rule court judgment

Legislature can enact new law, cannot over directly rule court judgment

Subject: Polity

Section: Parliament

Context: Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud discussed the separation of powers, noting that the legislature can create new laws to address legal gaps but cannot directly overturn a court judgment.

More about the news:

• Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud emphasized the separation of powers and explained that the legislature can create new laws to address legal gaps but cannot directly overturn court judgments.
• He mentioned the example of the Parliament amending the law to introduce reservations in educational institutions following a Supreme Court decision.
•  He highlighted the difference between the judiciary’s focus on constitutional morality and the elected government’s responsiveness to popular morality.
• The CJI addressed issues of gender and marginalized community representation in the judiciary, acknowledging structural barriers in the legal profession and the need for a level playing field.
• He discussed efforts to improve people’s access to justice, such as translating judgments into regional languages and using technology for transparency.
• Regarding the retirement age of Supreme Court judges, he noted that it’s a matter for Parliament to decide, emphasizing the importance of passing on responsibilities to succeeding generations.

What is the Doctrine of Separation of Powers:

• Separation of powers is the division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies.
• The Legislature is responsible for legislating, the Executive for executing laws, and the Judiciary for interpreting and upholding the law.
• The primary objective of this separation is to mitigate the potential for government abuse of power.
• By distributing power across multiple branches, it acts as a check against the abuse or concentration of power in a few hands, ensuring protection against arbitrary government authority.

What are the various Constitutional Provisions involving separation of Power:

• Article 50 directs the State to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive.
• Articles 74 and 163 restrict the courts from inquiring into the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President and the Governor.
• Articles 122 and 212 restrict the courts from questioning the validity of proceedings in the Parliament and the Legislatures.
• Articles 121 and 211 restrict the Parliament and the State Legislature from discussing the Judicial conduct of a judge of the Supreme Court and the High Courts unless the resolution of removal of the judge is under consideration.
• Article 361 provides immunity to the President or the Governor from being answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office.

What are the various judicial pronouncements on the doctrine of separation of powers in India:

• In the case of Ram Jawaya Kapoor vs State of Punjab (1955), it was established that the Indian Constitution doesn’t rigidly adhere to the doctrine of separation of powers, but it effectively distinguishes the functions of various branches of the government.
• In Golak Nath vs State of Punjab (1967) emphasized that the three government organs should operate within their designated boundaries, respecting the constitutional framework.
• In the landmark case of Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain (1975), a clause in Article 329A meant to shield the Prime Minister’s election dispute from judicial review was invalidated by the Supreme Court, highlighting the inclusion of the separation of powers as an essential part of the Constitution’s Basic structure.
• In Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab (1994) articulated the distinct roles of the legislature, executive, and judiciary, clarifying that the legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets them while adhering to constitutional limits.