Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Conflict Between Legislature and Judiciary

Better Essays
1035 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Conflict Between Legislature and Judiciary
The Legislature and the Judiciary: Conflicts

The article “The Courts and the legislature in India” by Phiroze K. Irani talks about the conflict between the Judiciary and the Legislature, the two of the three pillars of India.
The problem between the two bodies dates back to the commencement of the constitution, within one and a half year, the legislature amended the constitution so that certain important judicial decisions could not come into effect.
Phiroze K. Irani proposes to deal with the clashes between the legislative and the judiciary from three aspects. First, the judicial approach to the legislation especially in the public welfare field.
Focusing the public welfare, sometimes legislature has to pass certain bills and make certain laws which may be different from the strict guidelines of the legal values and the constitution, but morally correct for the welfare of the people at that period of time. In such cases, the judiciary deals with the legislature in a strict way and questions the socialistic manner of government.
The second aspect is the reaction of the legislature towards the judicial interpretations of the constitution. The clash here emerges when the judiciary experiences a need for a new law and the legislature is reluctant to it. The judiciary interprets the constitution in its way to have the need of a new law fulfilled. The legislature reacts to this in an opposite way many a times, which creates tension between the two bodies.
The third way, the problems between the judiciary and the legislature should be dealt, is, the judicial attitude towards the legislative privilege. The legislature enjoys the privilege of law making and the judiciary has to follow and protect those laws, whether they are in the favour or not. Also the legislature thinks that they should be true arbitrator of the constitution because they have the power to amend the constitution.
The parliament can amend the constitution by simple majority. In simple terms the constitution can be amended easily in India unlike US, where it is much difficult. That’s why the legislature feels greater urge to amend the constitution to nullify the effects of some judicial decisions. In fifteen years the constitution has been amended eighteen times.
The list of reasons why the clashes happen between the legislature and the judiciary are not just a handful, but many.
In the period before the independence, judiciary has convicted many present times legislators, therefore there is some kind of bitterness in the legislators towards the judiciary.
A big reason, why the legislature tries to prove its upper hand is that, the member of the constituent assembly framed the constitution, at the time of the enactment of the constitution the whole assembly dissolved and was as it was taken in the legislature, due to this, the present day legislators still think, that they know the constitution better than the judiciary as they were the one, who were the framers of the constitution. At times they forget that they are only one of the three equal bodies, i.e. the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. Rather than legislature develops superiority complex amongst the three.
A feeling of bitterness comes into the mind of the judiciary, when the lawyers are not treated as the respected member of Indian community, they are looked upon as a manipulator.
When it comes to the matter of social reforms, the problem between the judiciary and the legislature can clearly be seen.
The point which the legislature rises is that they know the good of the people and their needs well, and they work for the public welfare, while the power of deciding what is good or bad is given to the judiciary.
The speech by the Prime Minister of India tells better the conflict between the judiciary and the legislature. In his speech PM clearly stated that the judiciary is not supposed to go against the will of the legislature. He openly deals with threatening judiciary, that if the judiciary will not be upto the aspirations of the legislature, then they won’t hesitate to amend the constitution, or will appoint the judges of their choice.
The power of judicial review of the judiciary is completely ignored while making such comments over the judiciary.
The land reform measures by the legislature also led to the conflicts between the judiciary and the legislature. The landlordism was removed and the actual tiller of those lands became the owner.
The enactment ran into problem in high courts and they ordered that the enactment was against the fundamental rights. This led to an amendment again.
In the root cause of these problems between the two bodies, there is the constitution itself. There are some loopholes, due to them the various powers of the judiciary and the legislature collide with each other.
For instance, as per the article 194- Legislature is a sovereign body, and the immunity is given to every member of the Legislature against what is being said or published against them.
Similarly, the judiciary is also kept away from the intervention of the legislature, over the function of the Supreme Court of India, except in case of the impeachment of any judge.

*************************************************

-Divyanshu Gupta
BA LLB Sec. A
SAP Id- 500028416
Enrollment no..- R450213040

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. This article is part of a lecture by Phiroze K. Irani, delivered at the British institute of International and comparative Law.
[ 2 ]. Three pillars are: The Legislature, the judiciary and the Executive.
[ 3 ]. First amendment in the constitution: 1952
[ 4 ]. Majority of more than 50% members in the house.
[ 5 ]. A two-part process of three steps: amendments are proposed then they must be ratified by the states. An Amendment can be proposed one of two ways. Both ways have two steps. It can be proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states. Or on demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress could call an Article V Convention to propose an amendment, or amendments, which would only be valid if ratified by a vote of three-fourths of the states.
[ 6 ]. Amendments in the Indian Constitution ( Chronological order), refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India
[ 7 ]. Bombay V. RMD Chamarbaugwalla
[ 8 ]. Article 31 was amended
[ 9 ]. Article 121 and 211

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    With the case getting major attention and making it very historical, it bought the Judicial Branch of the legislature on an all the more even power premise with the Legislative and Executive Branches. The Founding fathers expected the braches of government to go about as balanced governance on one another. In spite of the fact that the quick impact of the choice was to deny energy to the court, its long-run impact has been to expand the Court’s energy by building up the tenet that it is insistently the area and obligation of the legal division to say what the law is. Since this case, the Supreme Court has been the last authority of the legality…

    • 626 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hamilton focuses on three subjects in this paper. First, the process of appointing judges. Second, the tenure which they are to hold their places. Lastly, the judiciary authority among different courts and their relationship (Hamilton p.1). This paper examines the justification for their tenure, meaning the appointment for life under a good behavior. Once comparing the three branches, Hamilton discusses the judiciary as the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution because it does not have the force or the will (Hamilton p.2). He explains force as decisions made by the court that can only be implemented by the executive branch. Will is the fact that courts are not able to interpret the law according to their desires or political views. By making this comparison, Hamilton makes the first important point in this paper, the terms of office should be appointed to life to protect the judiciary from the other stronger branches of government (Hamilton p.2). His second point is regarding the limited constitution that gives enumerated powers to the federal government.…

    • 217 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    As you have studied, lawmaking can be a long and difficult process. There are many different…

    • 561 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    By making decisions regarding the interest of the society the courts assume responsibilities that belong exclusively to the legislative and executive branches of government. The Supreme Court justices may rule based on what is in their best interest while saying that they are deciding for the good of the society. Moreover, when the Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, they may not be the representatives of the public’s view. As a result, judges begin making policy decisions about social or political changes society should make and become “unelected legislators.” By freely interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, the communities’ confidence in the Supreme Court will be undermined. When judicial activism in the Supreme Court wields too much power, it can eventually destruct the essence of…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Constrained Court is a court that cannot create social change because it is constrained by three ideas. The first constraint is limited by the constraint of constitutional rights. The restricted nature of constitutional rights prevents the courts from effectively acting on social reform claims and would prevent change because not all claims can be looked at through a constitutional lens when emotional and mainstream opinion are a factor, and it is important for new rights to be built upon old ones rather than disregarded completely. The second constraint is that the court doesn’t lacks interdependence from the other branches of government to produce social change. The decision of the courts can be overturned by congress and congress can change the legal structure. The third constraint of the court is that the courts do not have the appropriate tools to create social change through the development of policy change. In order for social change to happen within these courts political elites must support the stance if not it will be…

    • 1975 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    By virtue of the first, the prince or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies; establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power, and the other simply the executive power of the state.…

    • 804 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Canada Charter Of Rights

    • 1558 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The main issue that arises from an inflated judiciary role is that the Charter is anything but self-executing, meaning it is open to much interpretation. It is full of vaguely worded rights and the social science evidence that courts have at their disposal in adjudicating Charter claims is anything but determinative. As a result, judicial decisions interpreting and applying the Charter are bound to be controversial as reasonable people can and do disagree about the interpretation and application of the Charter rights, so do reasonable judges, as evident by the number of closely divided decisions in the Supreme Court. As the Charter has elevated the role of the courts by allowing judges to make sweeping social and legal changes through their interpretation of the Charter's meaning, critics say this has diminished the supremacy of elected bodies such as Parliament and the legislatures, by giving courts the power to dismiss their decisions. Alternatively, others argue the Charter has initiated a "dialogue" between Parliament and the courts, with judges striking down laws where necessary which allows Parliament and legislatures to rewrite those laws in ways that are compliant with the Charter.…

    • 1558 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nowadays, the most diffused constitutional models of judicial review are the American and the European. Both these Constitutional models should be the manifestos of democracy and sovereignty of the people, but it is easily to deny this statement. In fact, we have to take into account that constitutions can be also negative for the consolidation of democracy. For instance, in many cases the authoritarian regimes use the constitution as support for them. Although, a democratic system would be against a certain type of judicial independence since democracies promote a popular participation, judicial review represents a fundamental organ for the protection of human rights and civil liberties.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Parliament is an elected supreme law-making body that is able to create new laws that reflect the needs of the people. It is not always effective as there are many different factors that can both help and hinder the process of legislation within the two houses. By being an arena for debate parliament is able to formulate effective laws through by discussing and debating the presented purpose of a proposed law. Thus lessening any chance of an unjust and inconsistent law being passed by allowing many different views to be voiced and considered. However with government controlling the majority of seats within the lower house, proposed laws are easily passed and in some occasions party discipline is used to achieve this. By forcing its members to vote according to what the party mandates, some laws involving different electorates don’t reflect the views of that area. Furthermore some proposed laws may be take months, or even years, to be passed.…

    • 695 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are strong arguments both for and against the idea that there is conflict between judges and government minsters. Some of the arguments for this include the increase in number of judicial reviews, the introduction of the Human Rights Act, the arguments over sentencing policy, and the fact that judges are increasingly speaking out against judicial decisions. Some of the arguments against this include the creation of the Supreme Court, the fact that judges are independent and neutral, judges knowledge that they cannot overturn parliamentary legislation and that judges cannot be proactive. This essay will consider both sides of the argument, and conclude that there is conflict to a SMALL/LARGE extent.…

    • 308 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Judicial Review

    • 1589 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The United States Supreme Court has had its issues as there has been persistent controversy over the appropriate role of the courts, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, in the legislative system. This debate has usually been…

    • 1589 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    The judiciary is the body that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state, they operate under the separation of powers, they do not make laws nor enforce laws but rather they interpret the law and help in its application.…

    • 911 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The judiciary plays a unique and pervasive role in American society because of its influence in establishing legal precedent, regulating industry, and crafting social policy. The judiciary is the arbitrator of disputes involving nearly every aspect of human experience, and in many cases these disputes cannot or will not be resolved by the executive, the legislative, and the electorate. Unlike the other branches, the judiciary has no choice but to make some type of decision on the presenting issues. Even a decision not to hear a case has significant repercussions on the relevant issues,…

    • 3787 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Legislations are the driving force to promote national profile and to improve economic prosperity. An advanced law system can maintain social orders and alter citizen’s behaviors. Personally, I hold the view that the legitimate principles have both advantages and adversities, while the merits surpass the downside in the most of the cases.…

    • 286 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    rule of law in singapore

    • 4261 Words
    • 18 Pages

    Judiciary has the responsibility not to interfere with or obstruct the lawful policies of an elected government. Only by doing so, the judiciary uphold the “rule of law” in the interest of good government and the welfare and happiness of the people.…

    • 4261 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Powerful Essays