Judicial restraint does not mean abdication of duty, says Apex Court
NEW DELHI: A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has said that the judicial restraint cannot mean abdication of the constitutional mandate of judicial review. Such power has been given to the judiciary to ensure that the legislature and executive would exercise powers within the bounds specified in the Constitution, said apex court, in a recent judgement.
"Judicial restraint is necessary in dealing with the powers of another co-ordinate branch of the government; but restraint cannot imply abdication of the responsibility of walking on that edge," said a bench comprising Chief Justice SH Kapadia, Justice B Sudershan Reddy, Justice KS Radhakrishnan, Justice SS Nijjar and Justice Swatanter Kumar.
It said: "The powers of judicial review are granted in order to ensure that legislative and executive powers are used within the bounds specified in the Constitution."
The power of the judiciary to invalidate laws that are ultra-vires flows from its essential functions, constitutional structure, values and scheme and indeed to ensure that the powers vested in the organs of the state are not being transgressed and that they are being used to realise a public purpose that subserves the general welfare of the people. It is one of the essential defences of the people in a constitutional democracy, the court pointed out. Justice Reddy writing the judgement for the bench said, our Constitution charges the various organs of the state with affirmative responsibilities of protecting the interests of, the welfare of and the security of the nation. Legislative powers are granted to enable the accomplishment of the goals of the nation.
An important constitutional issue regarding the power of Parliament was referred to the five judge bench. It ruled that Parliament does not have the power to legislate for any territory other than the territory of India or any part of it. "Any laws enacted by Parliament with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes that have no impact on or nexus with India would be ultra-vires," the bench said rejecting the plea of the Centre.
The government had said that judiciary cannot declare the 'extra-territorial laws' enacted by Parliament as invalid on the ground that they have an 'extra-territorial effect,' notwithstanding the fact that (a) that such extra-territorial laws are with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes that have no impact on or nexus with India; (b) that such extra-territorial laws do not in any manner or form work to, or intended to be or hew to the benefit of India; and (c) that such extra-territorial laws might even be detrimental to India.
"Our Constitution has to be necessarily understood as imposing affirmative obligations on all the organs of the state to protect the interests, welfare and security of India...we have to understand that the parliament has been constituted, and empowered to, and that its core role would be to, enact laws that serve such purposes."
