Deciphering Judicial Activism- A case for PILs

In 1990s,country witnessed unstable coalition governments,politicisation of crimes,high levels of corruption,policy paralysis.Legislature and Executive lost their credibility among the masses. Judiciary stepped in and assumed pro-active role in providing solutions resulting in Judicial Activism.As a result of it, Judiciary has entered into the domains of legislature and executive.The concept of Public Interest Litigation was introduced under which any person can approach judiciary as long as public interest is involved. PIL thus removed the limitation of locus standi. It has enabled justice for disadvantaged sections of society. PIL was made popular in India by P.N.Bhagwati and V.R.Krishna Iyer. It was through judicial activism that the Supreme Court in 2001 ordered States to provide mid-day meals to schoolchildren.

Critics say PIL is anything but Public Interest Litigation.They call is Profit/Publicity/Personal Interest Litigation. 

• PILs are often filed for gaining publicity.
• They are frequently used against political and business rivals.
• Judical Activism has disturbed the delicate balance of power. It has resulted in Judicial Adventurism. Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Adventurism is subjective i.e. depends upon perspective. Uniform Civil Code and Interlinking of rivers are policy decisions. Law making should lie in the exclusive domain of Legislature. Salwa Judum was related to the maintenance of law and order which falls in the domain of the Executive. Judiciary should stop meddling in matters lying in the jurisdiction of Legislature and Executive.
• Critics say personal opinion has been expressed in the form of judgements like :"Neoliberal policies of government is a cause of corruption"."Bhagwad Geeta should be made compulsory"."Government should be carried on the lines of Rajya Sabha."
• In the name of Judicial Activism,courts have neglected their traditional functions.4.5 million cases are pending with our judiciary and it would take 300 years to come out with judgements for them,provided no fresh cases are filed. Before reforming other institutions, Judiciary should first look into itself. There is secrecy in the functioning of judiciary.India is the only country wherein the judges appoint themselves.Hence Judiciary is itself not accountable.Critics say Judicial Activism is undemocratic in nature because Judges are not popularly elected.Ergo they cannot formulate or declare laws.

Arguments in favour:

• Through PILs, Judiciary has ensured the accountability of Legislature and Executive towards citizens, thus promoting the ideals of democracy.As long as welfare of the people is ensured,it hardly matters who is doing it.
• After all,Judiciary is forced to intervene because of the inactions of Legislature and Executive. It is natural that if any of the organs fail to do its mandated duties,then some other organ should come and fill in the vacuum.
• Judiciary has realised the abuse of PILs and the High courts have been forbidden to accept frivolous PILs. If a PIL has been filed with an ulterior motive,the person is liable to be punished with a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.

A case has been made for supporting PILs in the post titled 'Landmark judgements that changed India'.

Landmark Judgements that changed India

Landmark Judgements of the Apex Court in response to PILs-

People's Union for Democratic Rights v/s Union of India,1982: On the deplorable working conditions of construction workers, the court observed that "Right to life under Article 21 includes the right to have a dignified existence."

S R Bommai v/s Union of India,1993: The judgement was significant for the evolving Centre-State Relations.SC ruled that Imposition of Article 356 can be reviewed by Judiciary.The misuse of Article 356, popularly known as "President's rule", to impose central authority on states, was stopped after this judgement.

Vineet Narain case,1997:The case related to Hawala scam (unaccountable money).SC struck down "Single Directive" issued by Central Government that provided that CBI must take permission from the Government to to investigate cases against any officer who ranks above Jt.Secretary.SC came out with the criteria for selecting CVC and advocated that the person so appointed must have impeccable integrity.Appointment of PJ Thomas as the CVC was quashed by the apex court on same grounds.

Vishakha v/s State of Rajasthan,1997: Under Article 141,SC issued guidelines for safeguarding women from sexual harassment at workplace.

Salwa Judum case,2011: Supreme court termed the outfit unconstitutional on the grounds that the State cannot delegate the responsiblity of maintenance of law and order to the citizens.

2G spectrum case,2008: Citing irregualarities, SC cancelled 122 awarded licenses of spectrum.

Coal Block Allocation Case: SC cancelled all but 2 coal block allocations since they are done withour fair bidding.

Supreme Court is monitoring the SIT on recovering black money stashed abroad.

Indira Sawhney Case v/s Union of India,1992 -SC held that reservation cannot exceed 50%.It ruled that "Any law included in the 9th schedule can be reviewed by Judiciary.''

SC had directed Centre to look into the the feasbility of Interlinking of rivers and to enact a Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of the DPSP.

Goods and Service Tax

The introduction of the GST (122nd AMENDMENT BILL) would be a significant step in the field of indirect tax reforms in India.The GST Bill proposes to empower both States and the Centre to levy the GST, which will subsume the services tax, excise duties, stamp duties, entry tax,octroi,state VAT and central sales tax.It proposes that the Centre be empowered to tax sales of goods and States get to tax services. At present, the Centre can tax services but not sales and distribution of goods. States can currently tax sales and distribution of goods but not services.Further,GST would be collected at the point of consumption rather than the place of production.In principle, it is the same as the Value-added Tax (VAT) — already adopted by all Indian States — but with a wider base. While the VAT — which replaced the sales tax — was imposed only on goods, the GST will be a VAT on goods and services.

GST would be applicable on supply of goods or services as against the present concept of tax on the manufacture/sale of goods/provision of services.GST would apply to all goods and services except alcohol for human consumption. GST on petroleum products would be applicable from a date to be recommended by the GST Council.

Benefits:

• By subsuming a large number of central and state taxes into a single tax, it would mitigate cascading effect or double taxation in a major way.GST regime can boost India’s growth by up to 2.5 percentage points. Production costs would be cut,thereby making exports more competitive.
• India would become one seamless market and this would result in economic integration.Trucks won't need to wait on inter-state borders. 
• GST would simplify the indirect tax administration, broaden the tax base and result in better tax compliance.
• GST will improve ease of doing business.

Sticking Points:

The parliament may,by law, provide for compensation to states for revenue losses arising out of the implementation of the GST ,on the GST council recommendation. This would be up to a five year period.Consensus eludes the Centre and the States on the issues of compensation, petrol tax.Since the GST will be levied on consumption of goods and services, states that are net producers stand to lose revenue. States must not however lose sight of the long term gains.