Similarity Report ID: oid:26404:55875482

PAPER NAME

DOC-20240408-WA0003 (1).pdf

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

3036 Words 16434 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

9 Pages 172.7KB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

Apr 8, 2024 11:32 PM GMT+5:30 Apr 8, 2024 11:33 PM GMT+5:30

27% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
19% Internet database 1% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
14% Submitted Works database

Excluded from Similarity Report

Bibliographic material Quoted material
Cited material Small Matches (Less then 10 words)

Summary
Introduction

Since India gained its freedom in 1947, we have all decided to choose democracy over the royal
style of government. In order to prevent power from remaining concentrated in one hand, we
adopted the theory of separation of powers. Our goal in incorporating this notion into our
constitution was to do away with rule by law and develop the idea of the rule of law. We
accepted this philosophy in a way that serves as a check and balance on all the democratic
organs, even though it was not adopted in a very rigorous sense since it is logistically
impractical.
The independent judiciary is one of the main goals of the separation of powers philosophy.
Since an independent judiciary can promote transparency in government, it was chosen to serve
as the constitution's guardian. Power, as an actual fact, tends to produce ideas of supremacy,
which led to cooperation between legislators and law enforcement officials. Since the
legislature has the capacity to enact laws, occasionally it attempts to interfere with the
judiciary's jurisdiction out of malice. It has had a wide range of effects on the judiciary.
5
The impact of legislative acts and constitutional amendments on the independence of the
judiciary is a crucial matter in the legal and political landscape of India. The judiciary, one of
2
the three pillars of democracy, is crucial to upholding the law and protecting the rights of the
people. The independence of the judiciary ensures the administration of justice and the
12
maintenance of democracy by acting as a check on the power of the legislative and executive
branches.
Legislative acts and constitutional amendments impacting the Indian court's independence is a
complex and ever-changing issue. Politicians still find it challenging to reconcile the need for
reforms with the requirement to maintain judicial independence; doing so necessitates a
thorough understanding of the constitutional pillars that underpin India's democratic system.
 1. Impact of Legislative Act
11
The Constitution has granted the parliament the right to enact laws. Parliament has the authority
to enact laws that apply to the entire nation of India. It has frequently been noted that legislative
measures were passed with the intention of either limiting the authority of the court or
overturning its decisions. Here are a few instances that we can use to support this.
The Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was passed by the legislature in order to regulate cases
pertaining to administrative concerns through administrative tribunals, after the constitutional
recognition of administrative tribunals. This Act prohibited judicial reviews and appeals to the
High Court and the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Supreme Court challenged the
restrictions, and ultimately, in the L. Chandra Kumar case, it was decided that the Supreme
Court could not be excluded from judicial review because it is an essential component of the
constitution.
Taking into consideration the Shah Bano case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that section
6
125 CrPC was a secular statute and that the court did not entertain any religious exception. The
Rajiv Gandhi government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in
response to protests and with the intention of preserving Muslim voters' support. This act
explicitly overturned the Shah Bano case ruling

The Supreme Court recently established guidelines for the appointment and terms and
conditions of Chief Election Commissioners and other Election Commissioners, taking into
8
account the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India in the
Selection Committee. This case involved Anup Barnwal. However, the Chief Justice was left
out of the Chief Election and Other Election Commissioner Act, which was passed in
December 2023. Saying that the government is attempting to create a system in which the
examinee appoints the examiner is incredibly pitiful.
 2. Impact of Constitutional Amendment

What is legislative override? Legislative override is the exercise of legislative power by the
13
legislature to amend, vary or repeal a provision of the Constitution pursuant to the procedure
1
provided for in Article 368 of Constitution of India. The first instance of legislative overruling
was when the legislature passed an amendment to annul the effects of the judgment of the
1
supreme court in 1951 in Champakam dairairajan [i]. The amendment was made by adding sub
1
clause 4 to Article 15 to circumvent the judgment. Before the judgment of the court in
dorairajan (Supra), the supreme court held that the right to property was a constitutional right
1
according to Article 19(f) of the Constitution. In order to bypass this, the Government
introduced Article 31A, 31B in the 9th schedule of the Constitution.

This was contested in the Shankari Prasad [iii] case because Article 31A gave the government
1
broad authority over land reform measures, while Article 31B shielded such laws from judicial
scrutiny. The Court went on to rule that, as per Article 13, "law" refers to customary laws
created by legislative authority rather than modifications made in accordance with Article 368.
It continued by saying that even the fundamental rights could be changed because Article 368
2
does not specify any upper bound. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in the State of West
1
Bengal v. Bela Banerjee [iv] case, which held that while the legislature had the authority to
determine the amount of compensation to be paid in relation to property acquired by the State,
that compensation had to be equal to the value of the property that had been acquired, the trend
of passing amendments to overturn Supreme Court rulings persisted.

The legislature responded by adding clauses 2 and 2A to Article 31A, which stated that "a court
could question no law on grounds that the compensation paid for acquired property is
inadequate." This led to the creation of the fourth constitutional amendment act in 1953.
1
However, in the K.K. Kochuni [v] case, the Supreme Court held that any law causing the
deprivation of property must pass the test of Article 19(5), which allowed only reasonable
restrictions to be placed on the right to possess and dispose of property, thus nullifying the
consequences of this amendment once more. Then, in Vajravelu [vi], the court decided that
even though the fourth amendment did not justify adequate compensation, it was still necessary
to provide something equal in terms of property value because the phrase "compensation" had
been maintained. Nevertheless, the phrase "compensation" was replaced with the term
"amount" when the legislature passed the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. Subsequently,
the court reiterated its belief that the phrase amount referred to a just return of the acquired
1
property in the Keshvananada [vii] case. The abovementioned right was then removed from
10
the chapter on fundamental rights in 1978 by the legislature through the ratification of the 44th
Amendment to the Constitution.

The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was contested in the Sajjan Singh case [viii], and the
court held that changing one part of the Constitution necessitated changing all of its provisions.
This position persisted for roughly 13 years until the Golaknath [ix] case, in which the Court
reversed its previous rulings in Shankari Prasad (previous) and Sajjan Singh (previous), holding
1
that the legislature lacks the authority to amend Part III of the Constitution in order to deny
fundamental rights. Justice Subba Rao established the doctrine of prospective overruling in this
case.
1
These revisions remained enforceable even after the earlier rulings in Shankari Prasad
(previous) and Sajjan Singh (previous) were overruled by the theory of prospective overruling.
The legislature ratified the 24th constitutional amendment, adding clause 13(3) to the
document, which said that amendments made by the parliament under Article 368 would not
be covered by Article 13 of the constitution, in order to overturn the statute established by the
9
Court in Golaknath (above). Article 368 now has a phrase stating that any amendments made
in accordance with Article 368 are not subject to the provisions of Article 13. 'Procedure to
7
amendment' was replaced with 'Power of Parliament to modify Constitution and procedure
thereof' in the marginal note of article 368.
1
Subsequently, the Court rendered its rulings in the Rustom Cavasjee Cooper[x] case (Bank
2
Nationalisation Case), holding that the Constitution protects the right to compensation, or the
monetary value of the property that was forcibly taken. To overturn this ruling, the legislature
passed the 25th Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment gave the government the
1
authority to purchase land for public use in exchange for a sum of money that would be decided
by the government rather than the courts.

Following the historic decision in Kesavananda Bharathi (Supra), the legislature passed the
42nd Amendment to the Constitution, adding clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368 to overturn the
decision in that particular case. The newly added clauses declared that the parliament's inherent
authority to add, modify, or remove Constitutional provisions under this Article would not be
1
restricted in any way. It was claimed that the limitation imposed in the Kesavananda Bharathi
case was void and that the parliament represented the desire of the people. It was decided that
the Court's basic structural concept was too ambiguous.
1
However, the Court determined that the additions of clauses (4) and (5) to Article 368
undermined the fundamental elements of the Constitution's structure in the Minerva Mills[xi]
case, which involved a challenge to the 42nd Constitutional amendment. The Court continued,
holding that one fundamental aspect of the Constitution was the limited amending power. The
Court ruled that the 42nd Amendment's alteration to Article 31C was unlawful because it
1
undermined the fundamental elements of the Constitution and that the court cannot be stripped
of its judicial review authority.

The second example of a constitutional amendment being passed to overturn a ruling was in
the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain[xii], in which the Allahabad High Court's ruling
1
invalidating Indira Gandhi's election was contested. The 39th Constitutional Amendment,
which added Article 392A to the text and made it clear that challenges to the elections of the
President, Vice President, Prime Minister, and Speaker of the Lok Sabha could only be made
before a parliamentary committee, was passed by the legislature while the appeal was pending
before the Supreme Court. Even though the Supreme Court later upheld Ms. Gandhi's election,
the 39th Amendment was declared unconstitutional because it violated the fundamental
framework of the document.

The Honorable Supreme Court has long maintained that passing changes that overturn the
1
Supreme Court's ruling would be tantamount to invading the judiciary's territory. Any law that
has been declared by the Supreme Court cannot be reversed by the legislature by passing an
amendment that would overturn the Court's decision.
Lastly, the Hon'ble Court ought to have overturned the addition and modification of Section
18A. It was not overturned since the Union of India's review petition was granted and the
Hon'ble Court issued instructions to guarantee that citizens' personal liberties were restored.
 3. Judicial Independence

4
A key component of India's democratic system is the judiciary's independence. It is a
distinctive quality that sets India apart from other nations. However, the judiciary's
independence has frequently been called into question by outside or political pressure, casting
doubt on several of the clauses stated under the principle of separation of powers. Thus, this
4
article discusses a few recent incidents in which the Indian judiciary's independence has been
questioned. The Indian Constitution ensures the judiciary's independence. But defending
judicial independence starts with the court's Constitution. The establishment and maintenance
2
of a generally favorable environment by all state institutions, including the judiciary and the
general public, is ultimately necessary to maintain the independence of the judiciary.
3
Additionally, because the court is too sensitive to be left unguarded, its independence must
always be guarded against unanticipated events and evolving social, political, and economic
conditions.
5
The way the Indian judiciary should operate has always been a source of worry because of
the long British Raj and the subsequent formation of a democracy. Therefore, the answer to
this question was an independent judiciary. The rule of law is crucial for the nation's
economy and stability. A judicial system that is unbiased and independent can create a solid
4
legal framework. The ability to enforce the law without fear of outside interference and to
keep effective control over government actions is known as judiciary independence. One
2
element of the fundamental framework of the Constitution is the judiciary's independence.
The independence of the judiciary guarantees the appropriate allocation of the authorities
held by the State legislation, the Executive, and the Parliament, as well as the harmony
between societal norms and individual desires. The legal system is frequently regarded as
neutral and is devoid of all political and ideological affiliations.
2
The court ruled in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) that judges ought to enforce the rule
of law with fearlessness. This is the cornerstone of the judiciary's independence idea.
2
The Supreme Court noted that the independence of the judiciary is essential for democracy to
2
work properly in the 1993 case of Advocates-on-Record Association & Anr. v. Union of
2
India. The court went on to say that as long as the judiciary is kept apart from the legislative
and executive branches, rights and powers would never be curtailed.
The judiciary's independence has been a topic of discussion all across the world. Nonetheless,
the written Constitution of India makes reference to the judiciary's independence, which
increases the significance of this idea. When the judiciary is independent, it means that the
legal community is free to decide for itself without interference from outside parties. In
addition to administering justice, the court plays a crucial role in resolving interstate
conflicts. Only when the judiciary is immune to all external pressures will this be possible.
4
One of the most significant functions in the legal system is that of judges.
Therefore, judges' independence is a corollary of the judiciary's independence. This implies
that the judges are independent of the government and independent of any of its higher-
ranking judicial officers, allowing them to produce reports and make decisions free from
3
outside influence. The Union Judiciary is included in Part 5 of the Indian Constitution. The
selection of judges for the courts is the first step toward the judiciary's independence. The
appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is governed by Articles 124 to 147, whereas the
appointment of judges to the High Courts is governed by Articles 214 to 231. Furthermore,
Article 233 to Article 237 of the Constitution mentions the Subordinate courts. The District
4
Judge's Court is the highest subordinate court. In order to guarantee that each organ would
carry out its duties independently and not impede the operation of the others, as well as to
2
help justify the principles stated in the Preamble, the framers of the Constitution separated the
judiciary, legislature, and executive into three distinct organs.

The definition of the judiciary's independence is still ambiguous even after years of existence.
2
Articles 124 to 147 of our Constitution deal with the appointment of judges to the Supreme
Court, while Articles 214 to 231 deal with the appointment of judges to the High Courts.
However, our Constitution simply addresses the independence of the judiciary; it says
nothing about what such independence actually means. The independence of the judiciary is
comprised of the judges who comprise its body as well as the judicial institutions. Judicial
independence does not, however, imply carelessness or arbitrariness. The judiciary is a part
3
of the democratic political system in the nation. It must therefore answer to the people of the
nation, the Constitution, and democratic principles.
It seems that the idea is based on and revolves around the doctrine of the separation of
powers. Consequently, it mostly alludes to the judiciary's separation from the legislative and
executive departments. The independence of the judiciary extends beyond its creation as a
stand-alone organization free from governmental control and legislative branch influence.
The ability of judges to decide a case in line with the law without outside interference is the
primary objective of the judiciary's independence. As a result, the independence of each
judge contributes to the total independence of the judiciary.
The greatest approach to prevent despotism, according to French scholar Montesquieu, is to
2
establish a system in which different authorities have the power to wield legislative,
administrative, and judicial authority while being subject to the rule of law. The idea of
separation of powers alludes to his view that tyranny was an imminent threat to any
government that was not already autocratic. One of the most effective tools courts have to
uphold the rule of law is judicial review. The term "judicial review" describes the court's
power to evaluate the validity of both legislatively enacted legislation and executive
directives issued by the government. The court keeps control over the legislative and
3
executive branches by using its jurisdiction. The concept of judicial review may thus be
traced back to the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice Marshall
recognized that the court had the jurisdiction to consider legislation made by the legislature.
2
Many scholars, however, have criticized this notion for a number of reasons, such as judicial
authoritarianism, an overreliance on judges, being undemocratic, and standing in the way of a
robust democracy.
Conclusion
In summary, we can state that India has seen a multitude of instances of legislative and judicial
squabbling since gaining its independence. There is always an ego conflict between the
legislature and the judicial because both institutions are given enormous power and treated
equally under the Indian constitution. Legislation intended to overturn court rulings has been
passed in a number of instances. We have also seen a number of instances where the legislative
has attempted to limit the judiciary's authority through constitutional amendments.
Harmonious construction between the two pillars of Indian democracy is necessary to prevent
turbulence between them.Legislators must feel constrained in their authority in order for them
to feel obligated to uphold the law. Power shouldn't be distributed in a way that encourages the
idea of establishing a legal system of rule.Put another way, the government and the judiciary
ought to put the Constitution ahead of their own egos.
Thus, the theory is put to the test and it is established that the sole purpose of several legislative
acts and constitutional amendments is to undermine and harm the independence of our judicial
system.
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26404:55875482

27% Overall Similarity

Top sources found in the following databases:
19% Internet database 1% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
14% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

legalserviceindia.com
1 10%
Internet

blog.ipleaders.in
2 7%
Internet

Symbiosis International University on 2023-02-17

3 4%
Submitted works

The NorthCap University, Gurugram on 2022-03-14

4 2%
Submitted works

Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh on 2023-09-09

5 1%
Submitted works

dokumen.pub
6 <1%
Internet

Bennett University on 2023-04-04

7 <1%
Submitted works

aninews.in
8 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:26404:55875482

Symbiosis International University on 2022-07-02

9 <1%
Submitted works

The University of Texas at Arlington on 2023-08-17

10 <1%
Submitted works

Mahidol University on 2021-06-15

11 <1%
Submitted works

Palm Beach State College on 2024-04-02

12 <1%
Submitted works

Symbiosis International University on 2022-07-02

13 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview