The Supreme Court’s rejection of a PIL seeking its intervention in ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of Parliament is welcome for underscoring the fundamental working principle of the separation of powers laid down by the Constitution. This principle divides the power between the three branches of government: the legislature, which makes laws; the executive, which executes or enforces these laws; and the judiciary, which adjudicates or interprets whether the laws and policies made enjoy constitutional validity. Such clear separation of functions prevents concentration of power in any single branch, while imposing checks and balances within the overall system. It is precisely the principle of not transgressing upon each other’s functions that Chief Justice of India (CJI) H.L. Dattu reaffirmed, while dismissing the PIL asking the court to frame guidelines for parliamentary proceedings to take place sans disruption. The court, he rightly stated, should know its lakshmanrekha and not overstep its boundary “to say Parliament be conducted in this manner and not in that manner”.
The latest order by no means undermines the judiciary’s role when it comes to review of legislative or executive actions. The courts can always step in when such actions are perceived as illegal, arbitrary or ultra vires of the Constitution; the judgments ordering the cancellation of coal block and telecom spectrum allocations made by the previous UPA regime were based on such interpretations. Moreover, Article 32, which B.R. Ambedkar called the “very soul of the Constitution”, allows every citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court if any fundamental right is violated — which extends even to laws seen to do so.
