The independence of the judiciary cannot be used to overturn a law passed as a political issue, according to the SC Center

0


The Center told the Supreme Court that the independence of the judiciary cannot be invoked to test the validity of a law passed by parliament as a policy.

She also argued that the annulment of a law relating to a policy issue was in fact a violation of the principle of the separation of powers.

Defending the validity of the 2021 Courts Reform Act, the Union government said: “It is a pity that laws and statutory rules passed by parliament and the executive in areas of pure policy are being considered. as void by invoking the independence of the judiciary when such laws and rules do not violate fundamental rights or any provision of the Constitution and are entirely within the competence ”.

“The government also believes that the tribunal overturning these pure questions of policy violates the separation of powers by the judicial wing of the state,” he said.

The government’s claim came in response to a slew of petitions, including from Congressman Jairam Ramesh, against the validity of the 2021 law.

The petitioners claimed that the Courts Reform Act 2021 repealed the principle of judicial independence in a deliberate attempt to overturn previous judgments of the highest court.

They asked the court to declare the law, which was passed by both houses of parliament and which received presidential assent on August 13, as unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution.

“The basic structure of the Constitution can only be used to test the validity of a constitutional amendment, but has no relevance when it comes to the validity of a law,” the Center said. The government also underlined that it had been held up in a series of cases, in particular by two decisions of the Constitutional Chamber and by a formation of seven judges of this court roughly the same.

He also argued that the principle of the separation of powers itself would be violated if the judiciary interfered with matters of policy and substituted it with what he believed to be better policy.

Discover the latest videos from DH


Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.