Indian Judiciary

Indian Supreme Court On Precautionary Principle

Indian Supreme Court On Precautionary Principle

Prof. (Dr.) Arup Poddar
Professor (Law), West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata

Precautionary principle is one of the mechanisms and procedures by which possible danger to environment can be mitigated. Right from the independence of India, the application of precautionary principle was not possible, because India was not open to understand the meaning and value of this principle. India started respecting this principle only from participating in Rio declaration of 1992. However, before 2010, no legislation on environmental protection ever spoke of precautionary principle and its application. Indian Supreme Court, from 1996 accepted the precautionary principle as part of the law of the land. From this year, most of the environmental cases decided applying precautionary principle.

Download the full Paper

Posted by Suvid Chaturvedi in 2017 Annual Special Issue
Judicial Excess, Parliamentary Distress: The Rise Of Judicial Activism In India

Judicial Excess, Parliamentary Distress: The Rise Of Judicial Activism In India

Ankita Sabharwal
Amity Law School, New Delhi

Republic of India, a former British colony has always taken pride in in its idea of Parliamentary sovereignty which can be deeply imbibed through the roots of its constitution. However, the recent trends indicating the upsurge in judicial ascendancy reflect otherwise.  A landmark example of judicial perusal to perforate the dominion of “exclusivity” relished by the parliament was that of Keshavananda Bharti, wherein the Supreme Court of India in toto stated that the executive had no right to alter the fundamental provisions of the constitution. A one of its kind judgement, it received immense criticism from both the Parliament as well as a large section of judicial experts for its undue trial to limit the Parliamentary freedoms. Another disturbing instance of the court’s unruly intervention was the Jharkhand legislative Assembly case, wherein the Supreme Court ordered the Assembly to conduct a motion of confidence and directed the Speaker to function according to the prescribed agenda. This paper aims to provide a critical analysis of the origin and proliferation of judicial activism in India and the extent to which it is justified under the ambit of “Larger Public interest”.

Download the full Paper

Posted by Suvid Chaturvedi in 2017 Annual Special Issue
Corruption in the Judiciary

Corruption in the Judiciary

Shubhankar Senapati
University Law College, Utkal University, Bhubaneswar

In the present context, corruption is accepted not as an unfortunate but as a practical tool in hands of the opportunist. And this is not because it paves easy way for things to be done but because of its abundant prevalence throughout the Govt. and administrative system. Corruption has long existed all around the world since time immemorial in one form or the other. It can be traced back to the fourth B.C to have been in India through the inscriptions of the Arthashatra by Kautilya. Kautilya goes on to state that there are forty ways of embezzlement and goes on to enumerate the same. This filthy concept has now taken shape of a political weapon which is unleashed onto the rivals in the right circumstances. India as a country stands widely infected by this plague of corruption. The state of such affairs leaves a man of principles unrecognized and struggling. Corruption may be said to be that, which forms the bond between the politicians, bureaucrats, and criminals giving way to the notion’ money is power’. The prevalence of corruption has sadly made its existence accepted as a part of the procedure. However, there have been a whole range of significant policies that have come to form an essential and an important step in the endeavor of combating with the evil of corruption. In India, the Supreme Court is relatively clean, though there are obviously exceptions. Proceedings are wide in court and documents are available for minimum payment. The accused is entitled to copies of all documents depend upon by the prosecution free of charges. Duplicates of authenticated orders can also be obtained. There is effective system of alteration in the form of reviews and appeals. Centre for Media Studies conducted a country wide research in 2005 on public approaches and experiences of corruption in lower courts and found that bribes seems to be fixed as the price of getting things done. The pre-determined amount paid in a twelve month period is around Rs.2630 crores. The Money was paid to the officers in the following ratios: 61 percent to lawyers, 29 percent to court officials, 5 percent to judges, and the remaining to middlemen. The main causes of corruption are delays in the disposal of cases, lack of judges, and complicated procedures, all of which are exacerbated by a predominance of new law. As of February 2006, 33,635 cases were impending in the Supreme Court with 26 judges, 3,341,040 cases in the high courts with 670 judges and 25,306,458 cases in the lower courts.

Download the full Paper

Posted by Suvid Chaturvedi in Vol. 2 Number 3, Volume 2, 0 comments