Challenging Laws: India's Supreme Court Power

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum in the country and plays a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing the laws of the land. One of the critical functions of the Supreme Court is to hear legal challenges to the validity of laws and determine whether they conform to the Constitution. This process ensures that the laws passed by the legislature align with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution, protecting the rights and freedoms of Indian citizens. While individuals cannot directly challenge a law's validity, they can do so indirectly by arguing that their fundamental rights have been violated. State governments, on the other hand, can bring disputes to the Supreme Court if they believe their legal rights have been violated by central laws. This power of judicial review allows the Supreme Court to act as a guardian of the Constitution and uphold the principles of constitutional supremacy.

The validity of a law cannot be challenged for violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution

On November 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of India held that the validity of a law cannot be challenged for violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice Chandrachud, who stated that the Basic Structure doctrine is made up of "undefined concepts" such as democracy, federalism, and secularism. The Court's decision specifically addressed the question of whether the Basic Structure doctrine could be applied to invalidate an ordinary legislation, in this case, the Uttar Pradesh Madrasa Education Board Act.

The Basic Structure doctrine, established in the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, holds that certain foundational aspects of the Constitution cannot be amended, even by Parliament. However, there has been a judicial divide on whether statutes can be challenged for violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution. Some argue that as long as a statute is within legislative competence and does not infringe on Part III of the Constitution, it should be immune from such challenges.

In the 2024 case, Chief Justice Chandrachud quoted previous judgments, including Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), where the majority ruled that the constitutional validity of a statute cannot be challenged for violating the Basic Structure doctrine. In that case, Justice K.K. Mathew found the Basic Structure concept too vague to provide a clear standard for determining the validity of an ordinary law.

The 2024 judgment by Chief Justice Chandrachud also emphasized that in challenging the validity of a statute for violating the principle of secularism, it must be demonstrated that the statute violates specific provisions of the Constitution pertaining to secularism. This aligns with previous rulings, such as Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), which upheld that ordinary legislation cannot be challenged for violating the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Disputes between the Government of India and States

India has several ongoing disputes with neighbouring countries, including China, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, over the status of various territories.

One of the most notable disputes is the India-China border dispute, which involves the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh, and Sikkim. Arunachal Pradesh was created in 1972 and has an international border with China to the north. The dispute stems from the 1914 Simla Convention between the United Kingdom and the Tibetan government, which established the McMahon Line as the northern border of Arunachal Pradesh. While the Indian government has administered the territory since 1950, the Chinese government has never accepted the validity of the McMahon Line. The dispute remains unresolved, with the Chinese Army controlling most of the Depsang Plains on the border of Ladakh and the disputed zone of Aksai Chin, while India controls the western portion.

Another border dispute involves the village of Susta, which is currently controlled by India as part of Bihar state but claimed by Nepal. The 1816 Treaty of Sugauli defined the Gandaki River as the international boundary between the two countries, with the right bank under Nepal's control and the left bank under India's control. Over time, the course of the river changed, and Susta moved to the left bank, ending up under Indian control. The Nepali government has repeatedly stated that Susta belongs to Nepal and has called for its return.

In addition to these international disputes, India also faces several internal disputes between different states within the country. One such dispute is between the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan over Mangadh Hill, located on their shared border. Gujarat claims half of the hill, while Rajasthan claims the entire hill. The dispute dates back 40 years, and while the Rajasthan government currently controls the hill, the construction of a road and other infrastructure by Gujarat has led to ongoing tensions and complaints of illegal encroachment.

Another internal dispute involves the district of Kasaragod, which was made part of Kerala in 1956 due to its predominantly Kannada-speaking population. However, since then, the people of Kasaragod have complained of mistreatment from the Kerala government. A committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, Justice M. Mahajan, recommended transferring Kasargod Taluk north of the Chandragiri and Payaswini rivers to what is now Karnataka. The dispute has been ongoing for over 30 years and has led to clashes over land and political motives.

Disputes between States

The Supreme Court of India has original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government of India and one or more states, or between the Government of India and any state or states on one side and one or more states on the other, or between two or more states.

Article 131 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in disputes involving states, or the Centre on the one hand and one or more states on the other. State governments cannot complain about fundamental rights violations. However, whenever a state feels that its legal rights are under threat or have been violated, it can take the matter to the Supreme Court. States have filed such cases under Article 131 against neighbouring states regarding river water sharing and boundary disputes.

The Supreme Court can give special orders in the form of writs. The High Courts can also issue writs, but individuals whose rights are violated have the choice of approaching either the High Court or the Supreme Court directly. Through such writs, the Court can give orders to the executive to act or not act in a particular way.

Lok Adalats is an alternative dispute redressal mechanism to arrive at amicable settlements of disputes outside of court. Every award of Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court or order of a tribunal and is final and binding on the parties to the dispute.

The Supreme Court of India also possesses advisory jurisdiction, which means that the President of India can refer any matter of public importance or involving the interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for advice.

Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

The Constitution of India offers all citizens, both individually and collectively, basic freedoms guaranteed in the form of six broad categories of Fundamental Rights. These rights include the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right against exploitation.

The enforcement of these Fundamental Rights is a critical aspect of India's legal system, and the Supreme Court of India plays a pivotal role in this process. If an individual believes that their Fundamental Rights have been violated, they possess the right to approach the Supreme Court through appropriate legal proceedings for redressal. This right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is a cornerstone of India's constitutional democracy.

The Supreme Court's interpretation and safeguarding of these rights have evolved over time. In the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, the Court, for the first time, employed the Basic Structure doctrine, which upholds values like democracy, federalism, and secularism. This doctrine was further elaborated on in the Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Raj Narain case, where the top court struck down a Constitutional Amendment, differentiating between ordinary statutes and Constitutional Amendments.

However, it is important to note that the suspension of Fundamental Rights can occur under certain circumstances, such as in the case of a Presidential Order under Article 359. During such suspensions, the right to approach the Court for the enforcement of these rights may also be temporarily barred. Nonetheless, these suspensions are subject to strict scrutiny, and the courts play a crucial role in ensuring that any infringement of Fundamental Rights is justified and proportionate.

In conclusion, the enforcement of Fundamental Rights in India is a dynamic and robust process, with the Supreme Court acting as the primary guardian and interpreter of these rights. The interplay between legislative actions, executive orders, and judicial review ensures a system of checks and balances, safeguarding the Fundamental Rights of Indian citizens.

Appeals in civil matters

The Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction under Articles 132, 133, 134, and 134A. These articles outline various conditions that must be met for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court. It is important to note that filing an appeal in the Supreme Court is a privilege and not a right, therefore, fulfilling these conditions is mandatory.

Article 132 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court for any judgment, order, or decree from civil or criminal cases or any other proceedings. An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and that the High Court believes the Supreme Court should decide on the matter.

Article 134A, introduced by the 44th Amendment, seeks to streamline the High Court's grant of certificates for appeals to the Supreme Court. It states that the High Court may, on its own, determine whether to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court for judgments, decrees, final orders, or sentences under its appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court also has the power, under Article 136, to convert any judgment, decree, or order of any proceeding from any court in the country (except military courts) into an appeal. In such cases, the Supreme Court hears the matter and decides whether to grant "leave" and convert the petition into an appeal.

Additionally, there are statutory provisions, such as Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, that outline the process for filing an appeal. According to the 44th report of the Law Commission of India, granting a certificate of appeal to the Supreme Court should not be taken lightly. The certificate should only be granted in exceptional circumstances or when the High Court finds it extremely difficult to decide the matter itself.

Frequently asked questions