Role Of Justice In Governance

This article argues that the assertiveness and activism of the Indian Supreme Court in governance has been influenced and motivated by the elite scholarly worldviews of justices. Drawing on a qualitative study of politically noteworthy decisions in the field of governance, this article examines how an understanding of the intellectual identities and professional of judges may help us in negating the forces that drive judicial activism in constitutional courts around the world.

The Supreme Court of India is possibly one of the most powerful and assertive high courts in matters of policy making and governance. In the 1970s, the Court asserted and entrenched the power to invalidate constitutional amendments that violate the basic structure doctrine

Bhagwati, V.R. Krishna Iyer, and other activist justices, the Court transformed its role in governance through a new activism championing the causes of social justice and human rights for the poor and oppressed classes of India. In a series of decisions, the Court reinterpreted Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to expand standing doctrine for PIL claims against government illegality and governance failures. These decisions led to a large influx of PIL claims in the 1980s. Responding to these procedural innovations and reforms, public interest lawyers, NGOs, journalists, and human rights advocates began to file PIL suits in order to remedy human rights violations and governance failures. In addition, the Court also relaxed its formal pleading and filing requirements and developed equitable and remedial powers and procedures that enabled it to assert new monitoring, oversight, and policy-making functions. From 1977 to 1989, the Court assumed an active role in challenging bureaucratic agencies, and state and local governments in cases involving the repression of human rights, social injustice, and environmental degradation. During this period, however, the Court was less assertive in challenging the actions and policies of the executive and legislative branches of the Central Government in governance

Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, Chief Justice Chandrachud, and others, embraced a new phase of procedural activism in PIL. The Court’s activism consisted of three key innovations. First, the Court expanded popular access to the Court by liberalizing formal pleading and filing requirements and broadening standing for PIL suits. Second, the Court innovated new judicial, non- adversarial procedures of investigation and fact-finding. Finally, the Court expanded the scope of its equitable and remedial