Daily Debates-The Great Indian Dilemma- Who Should have the last say- Elected Legislature or Non elected Judiciary ?

The Great Indian Dilemma- Who Should have the last say- Elected Legislature or Non elected Judiciary ?

Provide your inputs in the comment section below.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
By | 2017-05-21T08:48:16+00:00 May 23rd, 2016|Daily Current Events|23 Comments
  • sowmya

    Legislature and judiciary are two prominent pillars of our Indian political system was enclosed under doctrine of separation of powers ensures adequate functioning in their respective jurisdictions as well acts as checks and balances to prevent the domination of any branch of state

    Legislative power of elected legislators to amend any part of constitution to adopt according to changing needs was turned into misuse of power to the extent of taking away of people basic fundamental rights was countered by unelected judiciary through its basic review power – where checks the constitutionality of legislations, otherwise makes them invalid has reached culmination in keshavananda bharati case in 1973 through basic feature of constitution by judiciary which restricts the parliament power of legislation

    Time and again they are confronted :

    • Recent national judicial appointment’s commission – which was legislated by parliament for executive say in appointment of judges for higher judiciary was turned down by judiciary as its violates independence of judiciary, one of the basic features of constitution

    These recent confrontation raises the issues of who should have the last say in democratic functioning, which was in contravention of our constitution ideal which envisions for a balance of all the branches of state to organize in their jurisdictions for the benefit of people and to promote justice. Instead of determining the final say, exchange of adequate cooperation and ensuring mutual respect for each, sharing best practices along with operating in their own jurisdictions can help in reaching the public service and justice to last mile of the needy through PIL and right based regimes as promoted by our major organs of state to ensure the people rights and to fulfill their responsibilities

    • sowmya

      Plzzz review.. upsctree

  • Mahi

    Review sir

  • Mahi

    Review sir

    • Sure Mahi.

    • I like structure of your answer….

      Suggestions :

      1. Intro is quite long… Merge first two paragraph in one..
      2. Introduced some example to back your claim.. ( NEET, due process of law, Disaster mitigation fund, S. R. Bomai case, Ordinance and Uttrakhan crisis.
      3. Get in habit of using example. Will benefit in optional(s)

      Conclusion was remarkable

      • Mahi

        Thanx for the review … Yes I will try to work on ur suggestions

        • It is very glad to see peer 2 peer review. Thanks guys for your efforts.It is really appreciable.Keep it up.

  • I have issue with my laptop…. so please bear it..

    • No worries vivek…check the comment above

  • Sowmya, vivek and Mahi- you all have written good answers however the points below can improve the answer –

    1) give the background of the issues – when it started and what is its contemporary relevance in the introduction.
    2) mention of pil is necessary as it all started once the pil took firm ground in Indian legal system
    3)Also mention how the judicial activism or overreach had shifted its ground – from dealing with issues of legal matter in 1960s to dispensing social reform in 1980s. Now the theme being environment and education.
    4) do mention how the broadening of definitions of right to life in menaka case had profound impact on judiciary and how it became both proactive as well as reactive. Meaning of life has changed itself and rigt to life now also means right to sleep or right to good environment. And now the cases before judiciary increased multifold

    Rest is good in your answrs.

    • Imih

      Sire
      (First fact…a last year question….
      Who is the custodian of constitution …..and answer we saw was not president but judicary 🙂
      )
      Let me be specific Article 32 and 226 (i find hard to remember these articles :)) gives enormous power to judicary to make any endeavour of legigislative ultravaries, which go against the basic structure of constitution, so do judicary have the final say in anything that is done by executive and legislature.

      • In principle – the legislature should have the lasy say as they only have the consent of people.consent of people is the key – whoever has it should take precedence.

        • Imih

          Sir there had been number of times, when they said …..but court made those ultravarie and void….
          It is not about who can say ….it is who has final say….,in every case ….a law is passe( means legislature say) but every law is be passed before the eyes of judicary…
          So….
          🙂

          • Yes.sometimes both organs suffers from holier than thou syndrome.thats when the real problem arises 🙂