Jurisdiction of Judiciary Over Legislations

Source: The Hindu

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India is anticipated to assess the constitutionality of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and its accompanying regulations. Concerns have been raised about the lack of clarity within the CAA Rules, particularly regarding the fate of individuals whose citizenship applications are rejected. There is apprehension that denied applicants may be detained, leading to uncertainty. Petitioners have expressed worries about the potential for dual citizenship, which contradicts the core principles of the main Act and complicates citizenship matters.

What is the Stance of Tussle Between the Judiciary and Legislative?

• Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2001):
  • The Supreme Court said that “legislative malice is beyond the pale of jurisdiction of the law courts.”
• Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India (2023):
  • In this case the SC adjudicated on issues related to governmental actions and their constitutional validity.
  • The case is noted for its relevance to the “legality of certain governmental decisions and the role of judicial review” in upholding constitutional principles.
• Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023):
  • In this case, the Constitution Bench of the SC, advocating for an independent body to select the Election Commission of India (ECI), free from executive influence.
  • However, the subsequent enactment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, reinstated the Prime Minister's Committee's role in choosing the ECI, contradicting the earlier ruling.
• Jaya Thakur v. Union of India (2024):
  • In this case the Court declined to halt the operation of a challenged law, citing a "presumption" of its validity.
  • Despite assertions that the law was facially unconstitutional and posed a threat to democratic foundations, the Court's decision exemplifies a judicial reluctance to challenge legislative presumption, potentially undermining its own previous rulings.

What are the Major Judgments that Targeted Legislation?

• The CAA and its associated rules constitute targeted legislation, evident in their discriminatory nature. The law classifies people in the name of religion and excludes Muslims from the process for grant of citizenship.
• The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act (2019) is a prime example of targeted legislation, as it criminalized instant triple talaq despite its invalidation by the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017).
• The Act, aimed at the Muslim community, was unnecessary as the practice had already been deemed illegal by the judiciary.
• Instead of protecting Muslim women, the Act potentially worsened their situation by motivating husbands to resort to alternative means of divorce or abandonment, thereby failing to serve its intended purpose while exacerbating divisions.

What is the Outlook of the Judiciary on Legislation Around the Globe?

• The United States did not support the nullification of statutes based on perceived malice.
• An American legal scholar, John Hart Ely argued against using the Constitution to punish the malevolent intentions of political actors.
• There's recognition of the harsh reality of legislative bodies being influenced by malicious motives.
• Legislation motivated by such motives should undergo more rigorous judicial scrutiny.
• Scholar Susannah W. Pollvogt emphasized that animus cannot justify a legitimate state interest for equal protection analysis.
• Citing the case of United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno (1973), legislation aimed at excluding "hippies" from residential rights was seen as reflecting discriminatory intent.
• In India, the Supreme Court has effectively halted the implementation of parliamentary legislations in certain cases.
• Examples include Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2007) and Rakesh Vaishnav v. Union of India (2021).
• Swift, robust, and unambiguous judicial review is necessary for glaringly unconstitutional or divisive statutes.
• The Supreme Court should consider the political ramifications of its actions during critical times.
• Delay in judicial review undermines its purpose, particularly in cases involving malicious and unconstitutional laws.

Conclusion

The assessment of the constitutionality of the CAA highlights the balance between legislative intent and judicial review. While targeted legislation like the CAA and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act (2019) highlight challenges to constitutional principles, the judiciary's role in upholding democracy and fundamental rights remains crucial in navigating these complexities and ensuring justice for all citizens.