Paper: II
For Prelims: Separation of powers between various organs.
For Mains: Separation of Powers between various organs Dispute Redressal Mechanisms and Institutions.
 
 
 
Context of News:

• Supreme Court on 12^th January put the stay order on the implementation of three controversial farm laws passed in September 2020 and ordered the constitution of a committee of experts to negotiate between the farmers’ bodies and the Government of India.
• This stay order imposition by the Supreme Court is being seen by many as encroachment being made by the Judiciary in ambit of Executive.

Separation of powers between various organs:

• Separation of powers is a model for the governance of a state. In India Separation of Power is the basic structure of the Constitution. It is established in documents that dogma of separation of powers considers the idea that the governmental functions must be based on a tripartite division of legislature, executive and judiciary.
• The three organs should be separate, distinct and independent in its own sphere so that one does not intrude the territory of the other.

By Putting Stay Order, Has Supreme court Encroached in Ambit of Executive?

• While announcing its decision, Supreme Court gave the precedent of the Maratha reservation case in which it had issued a stay, but in that instance, the stay was given on constitutional grounds.
• Supreme Court said that farming issues are of federalism, of agriculture being a State subject, as well as the manner in which the voice vote was passed in the Rajya Sabha  was controversial.
• Looking at the Court’s decision, Supreme Court can put stay orders on parliamentary laws, but they need to set out legal reasons. If, we analyse the specific reasoning given by SC, while pronouncing its judgment, in paragraph 8, the court says, “We are also of the view that a stay of implementation of all the three farm laws for the present may assuage the hurt feelings of the farmers and encourage them to come to the negotiating table with confidence and good faith”. This is completely strange reason to put hold on law that has been approved our Policy makers.
• This decision of SC is indicating, that SC is concerned more about administrative concerns rather than legal considerations and statutory backup law.

Is there any Scope of Judicial Overreach in India?

• There is growing dissatisfaction regarding the functioning of the executive and the legislature and their ability to deliver effective governance to meet the needs and challenges of our times. In this background, it is a matter of great satisfaction that the public at large continues to hold our judiciary in high esteem. The judiciary as custodians and watchdogs of the fundamental rights.
• But, any law formation should not be considered sustainable, if the law formation ambit is in the Judiciary rather than Legislature and Executive working on their own scope of work.
• Constitution of India provides for judicial review under Articles 32 (Supreme Court) and 226 (High Court). The Supreme Court has pronounced that judicial review is a fundamental feature of the constitution.

Conclusion:

• The judges should not enter the fields constitutionally earmarked for the legislature and the executive. Judges cannot be legislators, as they have neither the mandate of the people nor the practical wisdom to understand the needs of different sections of society.
• Supreme Court of India is well aware of its limitations, and hence exercises self-restraint and caution over encroachment of the field exclusively reserved for the legislature and the executive.

Judiciary are forbidden from assuming the role of administrators; governmental machinery cannot be run by judges as that is not the intention of our constitution makers.

For Further Reading, Click Here