Judicial Doctrines: Cornerstones of Legal Interpretation

« »

29-Apr-2024 | Aarifa Nadeem

A doctrine is a concept or theory that is commonly applied and supported by courts of law.
In Indian constitutional law, multiple judicial theories emerge over time based on the interpretation provided by the judiciary.

In the context of legal interpretation in India, judicial doctrines play a significant role in shaping and clarifying the principles of law. These doctrines are established by the courts through their interpretations and judgments and serve as cornerstones for legal understanding and application. Some key judicial doctrines relevant to India include:

Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution

This doctrine holds that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution are beyond the amending power of the Parliament. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.

The phrase ‘basic structure' itself does not appear in the Constitution. The Supreme Court accepted this idea (the specific term - basic structure) for the first time in 1973, in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati decision. Since then, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution and ruled on all modifications proposed by Parliament. The case became one of the most significant in Indian constitutional history.

India's Parliament passed the 24^th Amendment to the Constitution, which aimed to limit the judiciary's authority and the scope of judicial review. The 25^th and 29^th Amendments were also ratified, which intended to limit individuals' fundamental rights and grant Parliament the authority to change any element of the Constitution.

Doctrine of Judicial Review

The Constitution empowers the judiciary to rule on the constitutionality of all laws. In India, the judiciary has the power of judicial review to ensure that laws enacted by the legislature and actions of the executive comply with the provisions of the Constitution. If a statute enacted by Parliament or state legislatures violates a provision of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to declare it invalid or extra vires. This doctrine empowers the judiciary to strike down laws or actions that are unconstitutional.

Article 368 of the Constitution conveys the impression that Parliament's modifying powers are absolute and include the entirety of the document. However, the Supreme Court has operated as a restraint on Parliament's legislative exuberance since independence. To preserve the original goals envisioned by the constitution-makers, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament may not distort, destroy, or modify the fundamental aspects of the Constitution under the guise of altering it.

Significant cases of judicial review in India:

In Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament lacked the authority to change the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This judgment was eventually reversed by the 24^th Amendment to the Constitution, which empowered Parliament to change any aspect of the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights.
In Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, the Supreme Court ruled that workplace sexual harassment violates women's basic rights. The court issued advice for companies on how to prevent and address workplace harassment.

Doctrine of Separation of Powers

In India, the separation of functions rather than powers is observed. Unlike the United States, India does not rigorously adhere to the concept of separation of powers. However, a system of checks and balances has been established, giving the judiciary the authority to overturn any unlawful laws enacted by the legislature. The doctrine of separation of powers is implied and essential for maintaining checks and balances among the three branches of government: legislature, executive, and judiciary. This doctrine prevents any one branch from exerting undue influence or control over the others.

Article 50 imposes a responsibility on the state to separate the judiciary from the executive. However, because it falls within the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is not enforceable.
Articles 53 and 154 state that the President and Governor have executive power over the Union and the State, and they are immune from civil and criminal accountability.
According to Articles 121 and 211, legislators cannot discuss the conduct of Supreme Court or High Court judges. They can only do so in the event of impeachment.
Article 123 conveys, the President, as the executive head of the country, has the authority to exercise legislative powers (promulgate ordinances) under specified conditions.
Article 361 states the President and Governors are immune from judicial proceedings; they are not liable to any court for executing and performing the powers and duties of their office.

Doctrine of Proportionality

The doctrine of proportionality is a legal concept that asserts that acts or measures performed by a public authority must be proportionate to the goal being sought. In other words, the authorities should not use excessive force or impose more limits to attain a legitimate purpose.
The principle of proportionality is frequently utilized in human rights, constitutional law, international law, and criminal law.

Anuradha Bhasin against Union of India (2020) case concerns the fundamental right to freedom of expression and speech, as well as the right to access the internet. Anuradha Bhasin challenged the government's decision to impose a complete shutdown of internet services in Jammu and Kashmir following the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which conferred special status to the state.

The Supreme Court of India ruled that the government's decision infringed the rights to freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to access the internet because it was out of proportion to the goal of protecting public order and national security. The court utilized the doctrine of proportionality and determined that the government's action was not fit or appropriate for accomplishing the goal.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

Legitimate expectation is a notion in administrative law that refers to a person's or group's reasonable expectation of being handled in a specific manner by a public authority, such as a government agency or a court. This doctrine protects the legitimate expectations of individuals arising out of a promise or consistent practice of a public authority.

Legitimate expectation is not an absolute right, but rather a basis for judicial review of administrative decisions. It ensures fairness and prevents arbitrary actions by public authorities.

Legitimate expectation is a dynamic and developing idea aimed at protecting people's interests while also promoting good governance, accountability, and fairness in public administration. It is similar in India to the concept in United Kingdom but with some differences.

In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society (2013) case, the court held that the respondent society had a legitimate expectation of getting a lease of land from the appellant corporation as per the allotment letter issued by the corporation, and the corporation's cancellation of the allotment on the ground of non-payment of dues without giving any notice or hearing to the society was a violation of the doctrine.

Doctrine of Necessity

The doctrine of necessity is a legal notion that allows for the breaking of the law in an emergency or when it is necessary. The notion recognizes that in some cases, strong enforcement of the law can cause more harm than the offense itself. This idea is recognized in many legal systems around the world, including common law and civil law jurisdictions.

This doctrine allows a deviation from the ordinary legal rules in exceptional circumstances when it is necessary for the administration of justice. It is invoked sparingly and in situations where strict adherence to the law would lead to absurd results.

In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab & Ors. (2012) case, the Supreme Court of India recognized the necessity of defense and declared that the existence of an impending threat is a required requirement for the defense to apply. The court dismissed his defense because there was no urgent threat to his or his family's lives.

This criterion is important because it prevents the defense from being used as an excuse to commit a crime. The defense can only be used in cases when there is a true and imminent threat to life, limb, or property.

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

This doctrine has been applied in cases to evaluate questions of capacity/competency to pass a law when a legislative body violates its given power by doing something indirectly that it cannot do directly.

The doctrine of colourable legislation is a method for determining if laws made by different legislatures fall within their legislative power. As a result, it is a mechanism for ensuring judicial accountability and the separation of powers. In essence, this ideology asserts that whatever is outlawed directly is likewise forbidden indirectly. This is intended to prevent the legislature from directly doing something that is prohibited and then doing it discreetly or indirectly.

Under this doctrine, the legislature is prohibited from passing laws that, though within its legal competence, are designed to circumvent constitutional limitations or to achieve an illegitimate purpose.

Conclusion

These doctrines collectively form the backbone of legal interpretation in India, guiding the judiciary in applying the law effectively, ensuring constitutional principles are upheld, and safeguarding the rights and liberties of citizens. Each doctrine reflects the evolving nature of India's legal system and the judiciary's role in interpreting and protecting the Constitution.