Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:42:41.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Public Interest Litigation and the Transformation of the Supreme Court of India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2013

Diana Kapiszewski
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Gordon Silverstein
Affiliation:
Yale Law School
Robert A. Kagan
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

The Supreme Court of India today is arguably one of the most powerful constitutional courts in the world. The Court has taken on an active and central role in the governance of the Indian polity through its activity in public interest litigation cases, and in some cases, has virtually taken over functions that were once the domain of Parliament and the Executive. Within the past two decades, the Indian Court wrested control over judicial appointments from the Executive, and assumed a leading role in policymaking in the areas of affirmative action, environmental policy, education, and development. The Court has generally exerted a great deal of authority in securing compliance with decisions in which it has asserted expanded power. However, during the first two decades after India's independence, the Court played a relatively limited role in governance. How can one explain the expansion of the Court's role in Indian politics today?

This chapter examines a critical “moment” in the expansion of judicial power in India: the development of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regime in the post–Emergency Indian Court. Following the end of Indira Gandhi's Emergency regime (1975–1977) and the election of the Janata party government in 1977, the Supreme Court of India expanded popular access to the Court and broadened its own power and jurisdiction through PIL cases involving repression of human rights and malgovernance. Through PIL, the Indian Court asserted itself as a “champion” of the rule of law and responsible governance in the 1980s, although the Court avoided direct challenges to the policies and actions of the Executive and Parliament in this period. As India transitioned from an era of one-party rule under the Congress party to an era of multiparty politics and coalition governments in the early 1990s, the Court became more assertive in challenging the central government, particularly in key governance domains including judicial appointments, corruption and accountability, and environmental policy.

Type
Chapter
Information
Consequential Courts
Judicial Roles in Global Perspective
, pp. 262 - 288
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, Bruce. 1991. We the People, Volume I: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Andhyarujina, T.R. 1992. Judicial Activism and Constitutional Democracy in India. Bombay: N.M. Tripathi.Google Scholar
Austin, Granville. 1966. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Austin, Granville. 1999. Working a Democratic Constitution: A History of the Indian Experience. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baxi, Upendra. 1974. “The Constitutional Quicksands of Kesavananda Bharati and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment,” SCC 1: 45.Google Scholar
Baxi, Upendra. 1978. “Some Reflections on the Nature of Constituent Power,” in Jacob, Alice et al (eds.) Indian Constitution, Trends and Issues. Bombay: N.M. Tripathi.Google Scholar
Baxi, Upendra. 1980. The Indian Supreme Court and Politics. Delhi: Eastern Book Company.Google Scholar
Baxi, Upendra. 1984. Courage, Craft and Contention: The Indian Supreme Court in the Eighties. Bombay: N.M. Tripathi.Google Scholar
Baxi, Upendra. 1985. “Taking Suffering Seriously – Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India.” in Dhavan, R. et al. (eds.) Judges and the Judicial Power: Essays in Honor of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (London: Sweet and Maxwell; Bombay: N.M. Tripathi).Google Scholar
Bhushan, Prashant 2004. “Supreme Court and PIL: Changing Perspectives Under Liberalisation.” Economic and Political Weekly 39(18): 1770–1774.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep K. 2001. Democracy Without Associations: Transformation of the Party System and Social Cleavages in India. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Clark D. 1987. “Public Interest Litigation in the Indian Supreme Court: A Study in the Light of American Experience.” Journal of Indian Law Institute 29: 494.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1957. “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law 6: 279.Google Scholar
Desai, Ashok, and Muralidhar, S.. 2000. “Public Interest Litigation: Potential and Problems,” in Kirpal, B.N. et al., eds., Supreme But Not Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press: 163.Google Scholar
Denoon, David. 1998. “Cycles in Indian Economic Liberalization,” Comparative Politics 31(1): 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhavan, Rajeev. 1994. “Law as Struggle: Public Interest Law in India,” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 36: 302–328.Google Scholar
Dhavan, Rajeev 2000. “Judges and Indian Democracy: the lesser evil?,” in Frankel, Francine et al., eds. Transforming India. Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 322.Google Scholar
Dhavan, Rajeev. 2007. “It is too Late in the Day to Put a Lid on PIL,” Mail Today.Google Scholar
Dhavan, Rajeev and Jacob, Alice. 1978. Selection and Appointment of Supreme Court Judges: A Case Study. Bombay: N.M. Tripathi.Google Scholar
Divan, Shyam and Rosencrantz, Armen, eds. 2001. Environmental Law and Policy in India: Cases, Materials and Statutes. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dua, Bhagwan, D. 1983. “A Study in Executive-Judicial Conflict,” Asian Survey 23(4): 463–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, and Shvetsova, Olga. 2001. “The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government,” Law & Society Review 35(1): 117–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadbois, George. 2011. Judges of the Supreme Court of India: 1950–1989. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, Mark. 1984. Competing Equalities: Law and the Backward Classes in India. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Galanter, Mark. 1989. Law and Society in Modern India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 1993. The Constitution Besieged: The Rise and Demise of Lochner Era Police Powers Jurisprudence. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Iyer, V.R. Krishna and Bhagwati, P.N.. 1977. Report on National Juridicare: Equal Justice-Social Justice. Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs.Google Scholar
Jacobsohn, Gary. 2003. The Wheel of Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. 2001. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Klieman, Aaron. 1981. “Indira's India: Democracy and Crisis Government,” Political Science Quarterly 96(2): 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limaye, Madhu. 1994. Janata Party Experiment: An Insider's Account of Opposition Politics: 1975–1977, 2 vols. New Delhi: B.R. Publishing.Google Scholar
Manor, James. 1990. “Parties and the Party System,” in Atul Kohli (ed.), India's Democracy: An Analysis of Changing State Society Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mate, Manoj. 2010a. The Variable Power of Courts: The Expansion of the Power of the Supreme Court of India in Fundamental Rights and Governance Decisions. PhD Dissertation, Political Science, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Mate, Manoj. 2010b. “The Origins of Due Process in India: The Role of Borrowing in Personal Liberty and Preventive Detention Cases,” Berkeley Journal of International Law 28: 216.Google Scholar
Merillat, H.C.L. 1970. Land and the Constitution in India. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Robert. 1962. “Economic Due Process and the Supreme Court: An Exhumation and Reburial, Supreme Court Review.” The Supreme Court Review34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muralidhar, S. 1998. “India: Public Interest Litigation Survey 1997–1998,” Annual Survey of Indian Law 525: 33–34.Google Scholar
Neuborne, Burt. 2003. “The Supreme Court of India.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 1(3): 476–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noorani, A.G. 2001. “Behind the Basic Structure Doctrine,” Frontline 18(9).Google Scholar
Peretti, Terri Jennings. 1999. In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, Raju. 2000. “The Supreme Court and the Basic Structure Doctrine,” in Kirpal, B.N. et al., eds., Supreme But Not Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, p. 107.Google Scholar
Rosencranz, Armin and Jackson, Michael. 2003. “The Delhi Pollution Case: The Supreme Court of India and the Limits of Judicial Power.” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 28: 223.Google Scholar
Rosencrantz, Armin and Lele, Sharachchandra. 2008. “Supreme Court and India's Forests.” Economic and Political Weekly, Feb. 2, 2008: 11.Google Scholar
Sathe, S.P. 1989. Constitutional Amendments 1950-1988: Law and Politics. Bombay: N.M. Tripathi.Google Scholar
Sathe, S.P. 2002. Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seervai, H.M. 1973. “The Fundamental Rights Case at the Crossroads.” Bombay Law Reporter LXXV: 47.Google Scholar
Seervai, H.M. 1991. Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary, Vol. 2 (3rd ed.). Bombay: N.M. Tripathi.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1964. “Political Jurisprudence,” Kentucky Law Journal 52: 294.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1981. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 2002. “The Success of Judicial Review and Democracy,” in Shapiro, Martin and Sweet, Alec Stone, eds., On Law, Politics, & Judicialization. London: Oxford University Press, p. 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, Justice J.S. 1997. “The Constitutional Obligation of the Judiciary – R.C. Ghiya Memorial Lecture,” Supreme Court Cases 7: 1.Google Scholar
Von Mehren, Arthur Taylor. 1965. “Law and Legal Education in India: Some Observations,” Harv. L. Rev. 78: 1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadav, Yogendra. 1999. “Electoral Politics in the Time of Change: India's Third Electoral System: 1989–99,” Economic and Political Weekly 34: 2393–99.Google Scholar
Second Judges’ Case (1993) 4 S.C.C. 441
Second Judges’ Case (1993) 4 S.C.C. 441 at 694
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64
Ass'n For Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002) 5 SCC 294
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2007) 1 S.C.C. 728 (ordering state governments and union territories to implement the Integrated Child Development Scheme)
People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2007) 1 S.C.C. 719

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×