Critical times call for strong judicial adjudication

Relevance: GS Paper II

Why in News?

Judicial review should be strong, immediate, and unambiguous when dealing with cases of statutes that are clearly unconstitutional or controversial.

More About the News: The top court should be capable of reflecting on its past decisions and understanding the political implications of its actions, particularly in critical moments. In due course, the Supreme Court of India will assess whether the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and its accompanying regulations are constitutionally sound. 

• The recent ambiguity in the CAA Rules regarding the status of individuals denied citizenship has intensified concerns. There's apprehension that those whose citizenship requests are rejected might be detained. 
• Additionally, some petitioners have raised worries about foreign applicants retaining dual citizenship, contradicting the essence of the original Act and causing uncertainty. 
• It's highlighted that judicial intervention in legislation isn't a common occurrence, as laws passed by Parliament are generally presumed valid unless they clearly violate constitutional principles. 
• The legal doctrine maintains that legislative actions are typically presumed to lack malicious intent unless proven otherwise, as stated in Manish Kumar vs Union Of India (2021). 
• The Supreme Court's stance in Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit and Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra and Ors (2001) emphasizes that matters of legislative malice fall beyond the court's jurisdiction(“legislative malice is beyond the pale of jurisdiction of the law courts”).

The lack of interdiction:

• Challenges of Populist Legislation: However, this conventional wisdom falls short in addressing the contemporary challenges posed by populist regimes worldwide, which often introduce legislation driven by specific motives or targets. Such regimes also manipulate electoral processes through legislative means. 
• The Judicial Response to Legislative Trends: This recent legislative trend necessitates a more proactive and assertive judicial approach. Persisting with an outdated presumption of law validity, and refusing to halt the implementation of such laws, would significantly diminish the counter-majoritarian role that constitutional courts are expected to fulfill in critical times.
• Impact on Democratic Foundations & Erosion of Judicial Authority: Every piece of legislation carries political implications. Regimes that disregard the principles of constitutional democracy are likely to enact laws without due regard for the constitutional framework. In such instances, a judicial inclination towards presuming the laws' validity has prevented the Supreme Court from intervening in their operation. 
• Examples: The failure to issue a stay order against demonetization allowed irreversible consequences to unfold, as evidenced in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India (2023). Similarly, the lack of intervention in the dilution of Kashmir's special status rendered the litigation almost moot, as seen in the judgment regarding Article 370 of the Constitution of India (2023).
• Judicial Stance on Unconstitutional Enactments: In Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023) marked a groundbreaking judgment by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, advocating for an independent body to select the Election Commission of India (ECI), free from the predominance of the executive. However, the recent 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 selecting the ECI. 
• Questioning Judicial Presumptions: Despite challenges in Jaya Thakur vs Union of India (2024), the Court declined to halt the operation and implementation of the statute based on the presumption of its validity. While not a targeted legislation, this enactment appears facially unconstitutional and undermines the foundation of democracy, particularly the integrity of free and fair elections. This serves as an example where the Court failed to uphold its own judgment, largely due to judicial superstition regarding the presumption of legislative validity. It's no surprise that in the 2024 general election, the actions and oversights of the ECI raised numerous questions.

A case of targeted legislation:

• CAA Case: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and its accompanying regulations unmistakably fit the definition of targeted legislation. Within this law, legislative malice is glaringly evident as it categorizes individuals based on religion, explicitly excluding Muslims from the citizenship application process. 
• Triple Talaaq Case: Another notable example of targeted legislation is the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act (2019), which criminalized instant triple talaq. Notably, the Supreme Court had already deemed instant triple talaq void in Shayara Bano (2017), rendering criminalization unnecessary for an act that lacked legal standing. 
• How this inadvertently impacts: This statute inadvertently incentivized certain individuals to explore alternative divorce methods or simply abandon their wives to evade penal consequences. Thus, the law, purportedly aimed at safeguarding Muslim women, paradoxically failed to protect them and instead exacerbated their plight. Despite its shortcomings, the enactment achieved its divisive objectives. Subsequently, certain states in the country also implemented anti-conversion laws following a similar pattern.

An example in the U.S.:

• Evolution of Judicial Scrutiny in Contemporary Politics: In the United States, the traditional perspective has been hesitant to allow judicial nullification of statutes based on malicious intent. John Hart Ely argued that using the Constitution to punish the perceived ill intentions of political leaders is inappropriate. 
• Susannah W. Pollvogt's Perspective on Discriminatory Legislation: However, in today's political climate, where legislative actions driven by malice are increasingly common, there is a growing need for more thorough judicial scrutiny. Scholar Susannah W. Pollvogt rightly asserts that animus, or hostility, can never justify discriminatory state actions under equal protection analysis. 
• United States Dept. of Agriculture vs Moreno (1973): Citing the case of United States Dept. of Agriculture vs Moreno (1973), she illustrates how legislation targeting specific groups, such as "hippies," reflects discriminatory intent and a desire to harm.
• Indian Legal Precedents for Judicial Intervention: There are instances in Indian legal history where the Supreme Court effectively halted the implementation of parliamentary legislation. 
• Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2007): For example, in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2007), concerning the allocation of 27% quota for Other Backward Community (OBC) candidates in professional colleges, the Court initially issued a judicial injunction halting Legislative Implementation. 
• Rakesh Vaishnav vs Union of India (2021): Another case is the Court's stay order regarding the three controversial farm laws in Rakesh Vaishnav vs Union of India (2021), effectively preventing their enforcement, which eventually led to their withdrawal by the government amidst farmer protests.

Conclusion:

In cases involving blatantly unconstitutional or divisive statutes, the process of judicial review should be robust, immediate, and unequivocal. The Supreme Court should heed the lessons from its past decisions and comprehend the political ramifications of its actions, particularly during critical junctures. Delays in adjudication often undermine the purpose of constitutional review. Time sensitivity is paramount in addressing malicious and unconstitutional laws.