LLM Notes: Constitutional Adjudication in India: Process and Theories of Judicial Role

 Constitutional Adjudication in India

Constitutional adjudication refers to the process by which courts interpret and enforce the Constitution, ensuring that legislative and executive actions comply with constitutional mandates. In India, this function is primarily carried out by the Supreme Court and High Courts, which act as guardians of the Constitution.

Key Features of Constitutional Adjudication

1. Judicial Review: Indian courts have the power to review laws, executive orders, and even constitutional amendments to ensure they align with constitutional provisions. This power is derived from Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Constitution.

2. Bench Composition: Article 145(3) mandates that constitutional questions must be decided by a bench of at least five judges. However, due to practical constraints, many constitutional matters are handled by smaller benches, leading to debates about efficiency versus jurisprudential depth.

3. Interpretation of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary interprets fundamental rights expansively, breathing life into Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (life and liberty). Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala established the doctrine of the "basic structure," limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

4. Resolution of Disputes between Centre and States: The Supreme Court adjudicates disputes between states or between states and the Union under Article 131.

5. Judicial Law-Making: Through interpretation, courts often fill legislative gaps or expand rights, as seen in cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, where guidelines for workplace sexual harassment were laid down in the absence of legislation.

Theories of Judicial Role

Indian constitutional adjudication is shaped by differing judicial philosophies that influence how judges approach their role. Broadly, these can be classified into two main theories:

1. Judicial Activism

Judicial activism advocates for a proactive judiciary that interprets the Constitution flexibly to adapt to evolving societal needs.

• Key Features:

  • Liberal interpretation of constitutional provisions.

  • Expansion of rights through judicial review.

  • Active intervention in policy matters when legislative or executive branches fail to act.

• Landmark Cases:

  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: Expanded Article 21 to include procedural fairness and dignity.

  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: Judicial guidelines on workplace harassment.

• Criticism:

  • Risks judicial overreach by encroaching on legislative or executive domains.

  • May lead to unpredictability in legal outcomes.

2. Judicial Restraint

Judicial restraint emphasizes adherence to the original intent of the Constitution's framers and respects legislative supremacy.

• Key Features:

  • Strict interpretation based on precedent.

  • Limited exercise of judicial review.

  • Deference to elected representatives in policy-making matters.

• Landmark Cases:

  • S.R. Bommai v Union of India: Demonstrated restraint by refusing judicial review on political questions under Article 356.

• Criticism:

  • May neglect pressing social injustices requiring immediate intervention.

Comparison Between Activism and Restraint

Aspect	Judicial Activism	Judicial Restraint
Approach	Proactive interpretation	Conservative interpretation
Role of Judges	Active in shaping policies	Resolving disputes only
Focus	Societal needs and values	Original intent and precedents
Policy Influence	Direct influence on public policy	Deference to legislature
Criticism	Risks overreach	May ignore urgent societal demands

Conclusion

Constitutional adjudication in India is a dynamic process that balances activism and restraint. While judicial activism ensures responsiveness to societal changes, judicial restraint upholds stability and separation of powers. Striking this balance is crucial for maintaining democratic governance and protecting constitutional values.

The Indian judiciary’s trajectory demonstrates an adaptive approach—embracing activism in cases involving fundamental rights while exercising restraint in politically sensitive matters. Ultimately, constitutional adjudication reflects the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding democracy while respecting institutional boundaries.

Print Page