We have final say on fundamental rights: SC
The anxiety that has gripped the political class in the wake of Supreme Court’s order on extending creamy layer to all quotas may well spiral if they go through the full text of the judgment that threatens to trigger a fresh jurisdictional conflict.
By Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN |
NEW DELHI: The anxiety that has gripped the political class in the wake of Supreme Court’s order on extending creamy layer to all quotas may well spiral if they go through the full text of the judgment that threatens to trigger a fresh jurisdictional conflict.
For the Supreme Court’s insistence on across-the-board application of creamy layer and the inviolability of the 50% ceiling on quota is part of the radical assertion to be the arbiter of Parliament’s power to deal with fundamental rights.
‘‘The important point to be noted is that the content of a right is defined by the courts. The final word on the content of the right is of this court,’’ said a five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justices K G Balakrishnan, S H Kapadia, C K Thakker and P K Balasubramanyan. In the context of quota, the unambiguous assertion implies that the court has reserved for itself the right to arbitrate the legality of even a constitutional amendment meant for expanding benefits to “backward” classes.
This is bound to have a significant bearing on the larger issue of political leadership seeking to put a growing number of laws in the 9th Schedule to insulate them against judicial disapproval.
The Bench said courts must interpret the Constitution in a manner which would enable the citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by it in the fullest measure. It cited the example of Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing right to life.
‘‘The expression ‘life’ in Article 21 does not connote merely physical or animal existence. The right to life includes right to live with dignity,’’ said Justice Kapadia, who authored the unanimous judgment.
Culling out the essential features of various landmark judgments of the apex court, the Bench also laid down the standards for testing the validity of the amending powers of Parliament.
Parliament’s amending power, in a given case, can be termed to have been exercised in breach of the constitutional provisions if it could be proved that a particular enactment has violated a principle that is intrinsically part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it said.
The apex court said, ‘‘In order to qualify as an essential feature, a principle has to be first established as part of constitutional law and as such binding on the legislature.
“Only then, it can be examined whether it is so fundamental as to bind even the amending power of Parliament, that is, to form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is the standard of judicial review of constitutional amendments in the context of the doctrine of basic structure.’’
For the Supreme Court’s insistence on across-the-board application of creamy layer and the inviolability of the 50% ceiling on quota is part of the radical assertion to be the arbiter of Parliament’s power to deal with fundamental rights.
‘‘The important point to be noted is that the content of a right is defined by the courts. The final word on the content of the right is of this court,’’ said a five-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justices K G Balakrishnan, S H Kapadia, C K Thakker and P K Balasubramanyan. In the context of quota, the unambiguous assertion implies that the court has reserved for itself the right to arbitrate the legality of even a constitutional amendment meant for expanding benefits to “backward” classes.
This is bound to have a significant bearing on the larger issue of political leadership seeking to put a growing number of laws in the 9th Schedule to insulate them against judicial disapproval.
The Bench said courts must interpret the Constitution in a manner which would enable the citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by it in the fullest measure. It cited the example of Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing right to life.
‘‘The expression ‘life’ in Article 21 does not connote merely physical or animal existence. The right to life includes right to live with dignity,’’ said Justice Kapadia, who authored the unanimous judgment.
ADVERTISEMENT
Culling out the essential features of various landmark judgments of the apex court, the Bench also laid down the standards for testing the validity of the amending powers of Parliament.
Parliament’s amending power, in a given case, can be termed to have been exercised in breach of the constitutional provisions if it could be proved that a particular enactment has violated a principle that is intrinsically part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it said.
The apex court said, ‘‘In order to qualify as an essential feature, a principle has to be first established as part of constitutional law and as such binding on the legislature.
“Only then, it can be examined whether it is so fundamental as to bind even the amending power of Parliament, that is, to form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This is the standard of judicial review of constitutional amendments in the context of the doctrine of basic structure.’’
ADVERTISEMENT
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
ADVERTISEMENT
