Extent of Judicial Intervention
Extent of Judicial Intervention
1. Meaning
Judicial intervention refers to the power of the judiciary to review, control, or correct the actions of the executive and legislature to ensure they comply with the Constitution and laws. Courts act as guardians of the Constitution and fundamental rights, but this intervention has limits to maintain the separation of powers.
2. Purpose of Judicial Intervention
To ensure legality and constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
To protect fundamental rights of citizens.
To prevent abuse of power, arbitrariness, and mal-administration.
To uphold rule of law and justice.
3. Extent / Scope of Judicial Intervention
| Area | Scope of Intervention |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Review | Courts can strike down laws or amendments violating the Constitution or the “basic structure.” |
| Fundamental Rights | Courts actively intervene to protect fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, among others. |
| Administrative Actions | Courts intervene if actions are illegal, arbitrary, or violate principles of natural justice. |
| Policy Decisions | Generally, courts avoid interfering unless there is illegality or arbitrariness. |
| Political Questions | Courts usually refrain from intervening in purely political matters. |
| Judicial Restraint | Courts defer to legislature/executive when decisions involve complex policy or technical expertise. |
4. Principles Governing Judicial Intervention
Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Judiciary should not encroach upon functions of legislature/executive.
Wednesbury Principle (Unreasonableness): Intervention when executive decisions are irrational or unreasonable.
Locus Standi: Courts intervene only when parties have sufficient interest or are affected.
Proportionality: Intervention must be proportionate to the violation involved.
5. Important Case Laws
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Supreme Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered, and courts can review constitutional amendments.
Established maximum scope of judicial intervention in constitutional matters.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Expanded judicial intervention on procedural fairness and fundamental rights.
Held that the procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Courts actively protect personal liberty and due process.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Asserted judiciary’s role in checking arbitrariness and protecting judicial independence.
Expanded locus standi, allowing wider access to courts for public interest litigation.
A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)
Restricted judicial intervention in matters involving policy decisions and political questions.
Courts held that policy issues are primarily for the legislature or executive, unless constitutional rights are violated.
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010)
Affirmed the court's power to intervene where state action violates democratic rights and constitutional freedoms.
Highlighted courts’ role as protector of citizens against state abuse.
6. Summary Table
| Circumstances | Judicial Intervention | Reason/Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of Fundamental Rights | Yes | Protect individual liberties |
| Violation of Constitutional Provisions | Yes | Ensure constitutional supremacy |
| Illegal or arbitrary administrative action | Yes | Check misuse of power |
| Policy decisions or political questions | Generally No | Separation of powers |
| Technical or economic matters | Limited | Requires expertise, courts defer |
7. Conclusion
Judicial intervention is vital to uphold constitutional governance and rights.
It must be exercised with care to avoid encroaching on legislative or executive domain.
Courts intervene more robustly when rights or constitutional principles are at stake but show restraint in policy and political matters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments