The Clash of Powers: Judge vs Politician in India's Three-Power System

India, a sovereign state founded on the principle of the rule of law, operates with a government divided into three distinct organs: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. These organs function independently yet interdependently as per the Indian Constitution. In this article, we will explore who holds more power: a judge or a politician, through the lens of the three organs of government.

Understanding the Three Organs of Government

The Legislature is the law-making body responsible for creating, amending, and repealing laws. The Executive is the law-enforcing body, tasked with implementing the laws and policies decided by the legislature. The Judiciary interprets and applies the laws and acts, ensuring they comply with the constitution.

The Role of the Judiciary: Interpreting and Applying the Law

Despite the separation of powers, the Judiciary acts as a check on both the legislature and the executive, ensuring they do not exceed their constitutional limits. The judiciary has the power to interpret the constitution and strike down laws or utive actions if they violate constitutional provisions. This power is highlighted in several landmark cases, such as the Keshavananda Bharati Case (1973), where the Supreme Court introduced the concept of the 'basic structure doctrine', further limiting Parliament's power to amend the constitution.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has shown that it can challenge and strike down legislation it deems unconstitutional. For instance, in 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, asserting its independence by arguing that the act could alter the process of judicial appointments. This act represents the judiciary's power to assert its independence from the executive.

Furthermore, the judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding citizens' rights, often serving as a check on the executive. The case of Maneka Gandhi (1978) is a prime example, where the Supreme Court expanded the scope of personal liberties under Article 21.

The Executive: Drafting and Passing Laws

The Executive, led by leaders such as the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, wields significant power by drafting and passing laws. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a notable example of a major political reform initiated by the executive. In 2016, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the demonetization of high-value currency notes was a bold political decision that impacted millions of Indians. This showcases the extensive legislative and executive powers held by politicians.

Politicians also have the capacity to influence key decisions pertaining to public welfare and administrative governance. However, their power can sometimes be seen as having a tinge of authoritarianism, as evidenced by how Indira Gandhi centralized power during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977, bypassing judicial scrutiny.

Interdependence and Clashes

Both the judiciary and the executive function based on the checks and balances system established by the constitution. However, in practice, the interdependence between these organs occasionally becomes complex. For example, judges can limit the actions of politicians through legal challenges, while politicians can indirectly influence judicial processes through appointments.

Despite the theoretical equality, in real-world scenarios, issues such as the pending judicial cases can create significant challenges. The Supreme Court currently has over 82,000 cases pending, indicating the enormity of the backlog and the frustration felt by those seeking justice. This situation underscores the reality that 'justice delayed is justice denied.'

Conclusion

While the judiciary and the executive hold equal and critical roles in India's governance, the practical outcomes often reveal discrepancies. The theoretical framework of the separation of powers is commendable, but the reality of judicial and executive limitations is often overshadowed by the need to efficiently and swiftly deliver justice. As we move forward, ensuring a fair and transparent system that respects both theoretical and practical realities is key to building a robust and inclusive democracy.