|VOLUME 2|ISSUE 1|JULY 2018|ISSN: 2581-3595|​

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VS DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF MODERN DYNAMISM

AUTHORED BY: LAKSHAY BANSAL, B.A.LL.B (Hons), BAHRA UNIVERSITY.

ABSTRACT

Indian Democracy has three wings the legislatures which devise the law, the Executives which enforces the law and the Judiciary which elucidate the law. It is believed that the Judiciary under the guise of interpreting the law goes a step beyond and ends up giving the country new binding law which is usually different from the existing one. This is known as the Judicial Activism. This paper contains the meaning of Judicial Activism, its historical evaluation in first part then being followed by the evolution in India supporting with the judicial pronouncements of Apex Court and Different High Courts and their ratio decidendi, obiter dicta and recommendations with respect to the acceptability and admissibility of Judicial Activism in the second part of the paper and the third part discusses about the issues regarding over activism (judicial overreach), basically called as Judicial Restriction and the short comings which are faced due to Judicial Activism. This paper helps to understand the evolution of judicial Activism and it’s advancement in the present scenario in the country.

How judiciary can go a step forward and provides a new binding law which is usually different from the existing law, resolve the overlapping powers of administrators of the nation which can cause serious troubles by interpreting the public policies according to his political and social perception to serve to the greater good.[1]

INTRODUCTION

The expression `Judicial Activism’ signifies the consternation of courts to find out suitable remedy to the aggrieved and the indignant by formulating a new rule to settle the colliding questions in the event of lawlessness or uncertain laws. The Judicial Activism in India can be witnessed with reference to the review power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution particularly in Public Interest Litigation. Justice P. N. Bhagwati in a speech has invigorated Judicial Activism has said

“The Supreme Court has developed a new normative regime of rights and insisted that a state cannot act arbitrarily but must act reasonably and in public interest on pain of its action being invalidated by judicial intervention.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines judicial activism as “the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decision that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent.

Judicial activism describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of power. The great contribution of judicial activism in India has been to provide a safety valve and a hope that justice is not beyond reach. Law professor and leading constitutional scholar, David A. Strauss, has given his point of view comprising the act of judicial activism in three forms that are:

  1. The act of toppling of established laws as unlawful and unconstitutional.
  2. Overruling judicial point of reference.
  3. Ruling contrary o formerly issued established interpretations.[2]

Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy among other factors, to guide their decisions. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, judicial activism is commonly marked by decisions calling for social engineering and occasionally these decisions represent intrusions in legislative and executive measures. The expression judicial activism means different things to different people. It might mean dynamism to the Judges, judicial creativity to some, judicial legislations to some others, while there may be some who view it as a tool for social engineering.[3]

EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

The abstraction of Judicial Activism is not of recent past rather it can be traced long way back in 1608, when England was ruled by the Stuart King James I. The King claimed that he could remove any case from the courts, and decide it in his Royal person. Chief Justice Coke replied that he could not do so since the cases are to be adjudged by courts as per law and customs of England; and that the King should not be under man but should be under God and law. This was an affirmation of the judicial power while upholding the rule of law against arbitrary decisions of the sovereign. This was judicial activism at its finest.

In 1801, in the celebrated case of Marbury v. Madison[4], the supremacy of judiciary could be seen when Chief Justice John Marshall highlighted and reaffirmed the power of the American

Supreme Court to go against the State and invalidate an act of Congress. Thereafter, in 1857 when the American Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Taney ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford[5]that Negros were not equal to whites and the rights guaranteed under the Constitution were not available to them, the decision had accelerated the civil war between the Northern and Southern States ultimately resulting in the abolition of slavery and strengthening of the Union.

Since the mid Sixties, another era of English Judges, preferences of Lord Reid, Lord Denning

and Lord Wilberforce, with their precept of “purposive translation” gave new significance to English Administrative Law, restoring and expanding antiquated standards of regular equity and reasonableness, applying them to public authorities and to private bodies that exercise public power, and dismissing cases of free administrative discretion.[6] In his acclaimed address on the Judge as legislator, Lord Reid, in 1972, saw: “Some time ago it was thought practically revolting to recommend that judges make law – they just announce it. Those with a desire for tall tales appear to have felt that in some Aladdin’s give in there is concealed the Common Law in all its magnificence and that on a judge’s arrangement there plummets on him information of the enchantment words Open Sesame. Terrible choices are given when the judge obfuscates the secret key and the wrong entryway opens. Be that as it may, we don’t have faith in fairy tales any longer.”[7]

As to legal activism in India, the previous Chief Justice of India A.H Ahmadi saw that, “Judicial Activism is important extra of the legal capacity since the assurance of open enthusiasm instead of private intrigue happens to be its principle concern”.[8] Presently, it is acknowledged all around that a legitimate framework depends on judiciary with such apivotal capacity as legal system of enactment and organization activity, it definitely makes the judge a legislator.[9]

Our constitution producer deliberately made the content of the constitution as itemized andparticular so to dodge any caution with respect to the Indian Judiciary. Pt. Nehru inconstituent assembly level headed discussion said that the court could indicate out us on theoff chance that we turn out badly. Yet in matter of policy the parliament was incomparable.

Indeed, even in 1950 where the court ruled against the land change policy of the legislature, the constitution was revised to prohibit judicial review for such strategy matter. The courtplayed a restricted and technocratic part and anticipated as a traditionalist, branch of thelegislature. The SC in A. K. Gopalan case[10] itself characterized its restricted part andregarded the tenet of partition of power and authority. It is just in 1965 in Sajjan Singhcase[11] two judges raised uncertainty about the skill of the legislature to amend theconstitution so as to take away the fundamental rights. But the majority held that the power ofparliament to amend the constitution was unlimited and since then it was the accepted modelof judicial review.[12]

In 1967 in case of Golak Nath Case[13] SC overruled the past choice of the court and held thatthe parliament had no authority to correct the constitution as to encroach the principal rights.This choice stunned the whole group of the judges, advocates, lawmakers. Indeed, even legitimate academicians, for example, Seervai, Tripathi, Jain and Sathetook the position that how a court can say that constitution couldn’t be revised. Different instances of SC which made its picture as pro-rich were bank nationalization case[14] and de-acknowledgment of princes.[15] Indeed, even Indira Gandhi in its declaration for 1971 elections guaranteed that she will roll out some fundamental improvements in the constitution and she secured two third seats in the Lok Sabha that was truly a command against the SC. Again in 1973 in Kesavananda Bharti case[16] the SC found the gadget of essential structure to maintain a strategic distance from head-to-head showdown with the administration. This fight between these two organs finished in Minerva Mill case.[17]

In the initial stages, only in respect of substantive laws, the doctrine of due process was applied but later the procedural laws also were brought within its purview between 1898 and 1937.

Reasons for the growth of Judicial Activism can be divided in broad categories these are:

The executive and the legislature both fails to discharge their respective functions competently and there is overlapping of the administrative power among both. When legislature fails to make laws to cope up with the fast changing conditions and demands of the society and government authorities fails to render the administrative functions this affects the democracy of the country. Hence this is one broadly accepted reason for the growth of Judicial Activism.

People look up to the judicial system of the country for the protection of their fundamental rights and freedom or if some other rights are being transgressed of the Simply the judiciary can’t just be silent spectator of the wrong happening to the people. The judges, in such have to act as responsible members of the society and provide relief to the grievances. Hence, the Activism is accepted to get proper remedy.

It is pointed out by Professor Upendra Baxi, many individual players are responsible for activating judicial activism,[18] They are for example civil right activists, people right activists, consumer right grouts, bounded labour groups, citizens for environmental action, women rights groups and assorted lawyer – based groups etc. The same jurist goes on to point out that although judicial activism is a collective venture, some individual justices have also played a foundational role. For instance without Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, O. Chinappa Reddy and D.A. Desai, JJ, in the formative years of social action litigation, without these people the Judicial Activism must have not been into existence. As these the people who have devised the concept.

To fulfill the vacuum which created by any of the organ of the administrative of the country by its inactivity, incompetence and disinterest in working then the other organs expand their jurisdiction of working to fulfill that gap or vacuum which is created because without the proper functioning of the administrative system of the country, a country will collapse. Thus Judiciary is left with no other option rather to act outside its domain to fulfill the gap.

For the social transformation if the executive and the legislature couldn’t cope up and fail to provide the pathway in the current situations due to lack of understanding ornegligence, incompetence of the other organs. Hence, the judicial activism hasemerged to avoid the non-activism of the legislature and the executive.

Rightly said by Upendra Baxi, as he highlighting the need of judiciary for the citizens of India and has expressed Indian nation to be obsessed with the judicial salvation.[19] People are versed to look upon the judicial system for all their miseries and sufferings expecting to get aid or subvention. This has shepherded the Judiciary to take the role of an Activist.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN INDIA

The Supreme Court of India is looked upon as a protector of the Indian Constitution. It is constitutional obligation of the Judiciary to strike down the law made by the legislature and acts done by the executive found to be unconstitutional or transgress the rights of individual guaranteed by the constitution. In the first few years of the working of the Constitution, the Courts more or less lived up to the expectations of the Constituent Assembly, which had envisaged a limited role for the Apex Court? It did not indulge in much ‘activism’ or ‘lawmaking’, thus living up to the positivist notion that Judges do not make the law. In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan[20] though the decision would prima facie seem to be against the Government, it was in reality an instance of affirmation of the limited role of the Judiciary which it was assigned to. It was for the first time in A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras[21]the court discussed and expanded the importance of fundamental rights. In the Nehruvian era, the Parliament held the initiative and the Court merely responded. During this period the parliament could amend the Constitution easily through special majority under Article 368. The Constitution was amended 17 times and in such a situation, it would have been injurious to the Judiciary had it taken up the baton of judicial activism. A few of the amendments gave rise to a debate on the scope of amending power of Parliament. It also gave a chance for the Judiciary to break out of its docility. In 1951, the Court held unanimously in Shankari Prasad Deo v. Union of India[22]that the amending power was unlimited, the Parliament could use its constituent power to take away or abridge the fundamental rights which was affirmed in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan[23], but that was only a majority decision and not unanimous. However, in LC Golaknath v. State of Punjab[24], the Court declared that Parliament could not amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights. This decision was a watershed in the history of the Supreme Court of India’s evolution from a positivist court to activist Court. Subsequently, the Court by a majority of 11:2 in Keshavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala[25] held that the above case was wrongly decided, but propounded the theory of Basic Structure. It was held that the constituent power of the parliament could not be exercised so as to destroy or take away any of the basic features of the Constitution, which was to be determined by the Court from time to time. The court held that a constitutional amendment duly passed by the legislature was invalid as damaging or destroying its basic structure. Through this landmark judgment the Court set a benchmark of basic structure of the Constitution and made it apparent that any law infringing the basic structure of the Constitution would be held void. This decision made it apparent that activist courts have taken steps against the Parliament and defended the public rights for larger societal benefits. This was a gigantic innovative judicial leap unknown to any legal system. Then in the time period of post emergency in the case of Maneka Gandhi v Union of India[26], the Court achieved fruitful and beneficial activism by reinterpreting Article 21 that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law introducing the principle of due process of law therein. It was stated that life and personal liberty had wider meanings and would interpret these terms from time to time. The said case is the most important example of judicial activism.

Judicial Activism was made possible in India by means of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the concept of PIL was first introduced by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Bhai[27]. Then in early 1980’s Judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy nurtured the new concept of Public InterestLitigation. The Courts expanded various provisions of law, interpreted statutes and gavedecisions from humanist view point and betterment of the public as before the Judiciary washaving positivist approach. In PUDR v Union of India[28]it was stated that PIL is intended to bring justice within the reach of poor masses who constitute low visibility area of humanity.Their violations of constitutional or legal rights should not go unanswered and unnoticed.Beginning with the Ratlam Municipality[29] case the sweep of PIL encompassed a variety of causes.[30] Ensuring green belts and open spaces for maintaining ecological balance;[31]forbidding stone-crushing activities near residential complexes;[32] earmarking a part of thereserved forest for Adivasis to ensure their habitat and means of livelihood;[33] compelling themunicipal authorities of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to perform their statutoryobligations for protecting the health of the community;[34]compelling the industrial units to setup effluent treatment plants;[35] directing installation of air-pollution-controlling devices forpreventing air pollution;[36] directing closure of recalcitrant factories in order to save thecommunity from the hazards of environmental pollution and quashing of a warrant ofappointment for the office of Judge, High Court of Assam and Guwahati[37] are some of thelater significant cases displaying judicial activism.

However, in recent cases there has been a change in Supreme Court in its approach towards PIL and judicial activism. The Court has adopted a narrow view in some cases. In Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v Union of India[38] the Court was asked to direct a legislation to ensure safety of the people on the road but it was refused stating that directing a legislation was not within its power whereas the same Court in the earlier case of Vishaka v State of Rajasthan[39] formulated the guidelines to prevent harassment of women at work place.In the case of Vishal Jeet v Union of India[40] the Court asked the legislative to act in certain manner as regards sexual exploitation of children.

“Judges must be sometimes cautious and sometimes bold. Judges must respect both the traditions of the past and the convenience of the present. Judges must reconcile liberty and authority; the whole and its parts.[41]

As the time passes the situation changes, society changes, demands changes and by the passing of the time the need of law changed according to the surroundings the laws made then were sufficient for that time but in the present scenario the judiciary will have to take steps not as positivist but as activists. Every country has to work out its Constitution according to its problems, needs and demands. As Justice Krishna Iyer once said:

“Every new decision, on every new situation, is a development of the law. Law does not stand still. It moves continually. Once this is recognised, then the task of the judge is put on a higher plane.”

The new jurisprudence of Judicial Activism that has emerged in the recent times has undoubtedly contributed in a great measure to the well-being of the society. People, in general, now firmly believe that if any institution or authority acts in a manner not permitted by the Constitution, the judiciary will step in to set right the wrong.

The courts cannot remain mute spectators when laws are not enforced and consequently,fundamentally rights are violated. If the Judiciary does not intervene, it would be an inactiveJudiciary. Political democracy without proper functioning of the Judiciary can be comparedto a body without a brain.[42]

The Supreme Court has taken many Suo Moto cognizance’s of various political matters,media reports affecting the public as a whole. Such matters where the common people are weary and has given up. The Apex court has taken suomotto cognizance pulling the senior politicians, the police, bureaucrats, ministers and many others for their actions. This is another way of fostering Judicial Activism. Recently Supreme Court has shown its enthusiasm in putting the culprits behind the bar in the matter of “coal-gate”. This is one path to nurture judicial activism but because of the over burdening of the courts, they are not vehemently taking the suo-motto apprehension of the matters. The forms of Judicial Activism other than PIL include expansion of scope of fundamental rights. (Art 21), Interpretation of DPSP as fundamental rights, basic structure theory, creamy layer concept, environmental, prison and human rights jurisprudence etc.

RECENT MATTERS RELATING TO JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

In the year 2016 latest matter of NEET National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, Supreme Court gave the ruling that it would be the only test conducted for the admission to the medical field in India, though this decision was criticised by many ad even the Finance Minister Arun Jaitely has said that the Judiciary should not encroach into the matter of Executive. Many states are also facing the problems as the syllabus of the state board and CBSE is different hence how will the students cope up moreover language barriers but the supreme court has explained it as it is step to bring the uniformity and to bring all the students on an equal footing.

In another recent Supreme Court has ordered the government to create a new policy to deal Drought after the precarious condition of farmers in Maharashtra after the drought. It has ordered the government to abandon the current system and form a new policy which must be transparent with a standard fixed for declaring drought. Supreme Court has also directed to form a National Disaster Mitigation which was criticized again by the finance minister of the government saying that the judiciary is now interfering the matters of legislature. However, Apex Court has the right to tell the government to construct new policies.

The major instance of judicial Activism, three Judges case, the Supreme Court is curtailing the president’s constitutional right to appoint the judges. This was done after consulting the Chief Justice and now the power is appropriated in the bench of four judges and the Chief Justice of India.

Supreme Court has ordered the union to set up a panel called the bad loans. And a committee has been formed regarding the same though RBI counsel is saying that the issues are already being dealt with. SC has even issued a notice to Arunachal Pradesh Government but it was recalled on the grounds of Art 361, in which the Governor and the President are not answerable to the court

in rendering their power and duties while holding the office.

Supreme Court of India has said to the government that there should be a process to audit the government. Which was being questioned, whether such action can be taken which was cleared by the Chief Justice TS Thakur that he has said in the context of NDA Government because there has been a huge delay on the part of it. As of late in the year 2012, in 2G case- Centre for PIL and Ors v Union of India,43 certain administration strategies were tested. The Supreme Court wiped out 122 2G range licenses, attempting to adjust the circumstance as best as the legal could on account of its results. The court held that it could positively examine and strike down arrangement choice which are illegal. The judgment was reprimand as judicial overreach since the courts can’t meddle with official strategies and choices even by legitimizing that bigger open intrigue is included. But the Supreme Court justified its order of weeping out 122 licenses for the 2G- spectrum matter, stating that it was mandate to cancel that license as it was against the constitution principles hence infringing the rights of public at large. Supreme court bench stated it was necessary to “ensure that the institutional integrity is not compromised by those in whom the people have reposed trust and who have taken oath to discharge duties in accordance with the

Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill will and who, as any other citizen, enjoy fundamental rights but is bound to perform duties”

Janata Party Chief Subramanian Swamy on referring to the filed PILs by the center has said in favour of such actions, he said “When matters like these are brought before the judicial constituent of the State by public spirited citizens, it becomes the duty of the Court to exercise its power in larger public interest…”

In Noida land acquisition case[43] Apex court has cancelled all the acquisition of land and ordered the builders to return the land to the farmers from whom they have acquired the land for industrial purposes.[44]

CONCLUSION

In recent times the country has seen the benefits of the judicial activism regarding the rightsand interest of public at large. The common people often face the wrongs committed to themdue to the judicial tardiness and incompetence but Judicial Activism is step or a process toremove such occasional aberrations. However, the Judiciary can’t remove other institutions as India is a democracy and the Judiciary must not interfere in the functioning of thelegislature and the executive in the name of Judicial Activism as none is above theconstitutional principles. Hence, they cannot be amended. The members of each institution sworn to uphold the constitution, which alone is supreme. Judicial pronouncement must respect each other’s boundaries as it separate them from each other. Judiciary should avoid over reaching their unwritten boundaries.

Judicial Activism has provided a ray of hope for the downtrodden to fight against the corruptbodies in power, the politicians, bureaucrats and others. This trend is supported by many Hon’ble Judges such as Justice Krishna Iyer, Justice Bhagwati, Justice Reddy and others. The court renders service as the guardian of the fundamental rights and various other rights withthe help of Judicial Activism and PILs. The Judiciary have contributed immensely after 1980for the rights of the weaker section of the society. PILs and Judicial Activism is developing to shape it and make it consistent some uniform principles must be laid down as many judges following the positivist approach don’t call for judicial activism. The judges should have anactivist approach to render orders in favour of the society at large even when calls for overstepping their boundaries and stepping into the boundaries of the executive and the legislature.

[1] S.P.Sathe, Judicial Activism, Journal of Indian School of Political Economy, Jul.- Sept. 1998, at 399, 401.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Id at 403.

[4] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

[5] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

[6] Justice A.M. Ahmadi. Judicial Process: Social Legitimacy and Institutional Viability (1996) 4 SCC (Jour) 1 (June 28, 2018, 10:15 AM), http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/96v4a1.htm.

[7]Anthony Mason, The Judge as Law-maker, James Cook University Law Review, Vol. 3,1996 (June 3, 2018, 11:10 AM), http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULawRw/1996/2.pdf

[8]Ibid.

[9] MK Malviya, Independent Judiciary: A Study in Indian Perspective, Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2013, at 110, 113.

[10]A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27 (India).

[11] Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845 (India); Justice Hidayattulah, and Justice J.R. Mudholkar, concurred with the opinion of Chief Justice Gajendragadkar upholding the amendment but, at the same time, expressed reservations about the effect of possible future amendments on Fundamental Rights and basic structure of the Constitution. Justice Mudholkar questioned that “It is also a matter for consideration whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of the Article 368?”.

[12]P.P. Rao, Basic Features of the Constitution, (2000) 2 SCC (Jour) 1 (India).

[13]Golaknath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 (India).

[14]R.C Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564 (India).

[15]H. H. MaharajadhirajaMadhav Rao vs Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530 (India).

[16]Keshavanand Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 (India).

[17]Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors.v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 (India).

[18]Upendra Baxi, The Avatars of Indian Judicial Activism : Explorations in the Geographies of Justice, Fifty years of the Supreme Court of India – Its Grasp and Reach, Indian Law Institute 173-79 (S.K.Verma & Kusum ed., Oxford University Press 2000).

[19] UpendraBaxi, (born November 9, 1938) is a legal scholar, since 1996 professor of law in development at the University of Warwick, United Kingdom. He has been the vice chancellor of University of Delhi (1990-1994), prior to which he held the position of professor of law at the same university for 23 years(1973-1996). He has also served as the vice chancellor of the University of South Gujarat, Surat, India(1982-1985). In 2011, he was awarded the Padma Shri, the fourth highest civilian award in India, by the Government of India.

[20]State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226 (India).

[21] A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 (India).

[22] Shankari Prasad Deo v. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 845 (India).

[23]Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1965 SCR (1) 933 (India).

[24]LC Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967 SCR (2) 762 (India).

[25]Kesavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India).

[26]Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India).

[27]Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Bhai, 1976 SCR (3) 591 (India).

[28]PUDR v Union of India, 1983 SCR (1) 456 (India).

[29]1981 SCR (1) 97 (India).

[30] Justice M.N. Rao, Random Reflections on Law and Allied Matters 211-212.

[31]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 SCC 351 (India).

[32]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 256 (India).

[33]Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., (1993) 2 SCC 612 (India).

[34]B.L. Wadehra (Dr) v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 594 (India).

[35]Satish Chander Shukla (Dr) v. State of U.P., 1992 Supp (2) SCC 94 (India).

[36]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 717 (India).

[37] Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, (1992) 2 SCC 428 (India).

[38] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v Union of India, AIR 208 SC 2116 (India).

[39]Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 (India).

[40]Vishal Jeet v Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1412 (India).

[41] Wallace Mendelson, Supreme Court Statecraft : The Rule of Law and Men 9.

[42] Kallada Sukumaran, Indian Judiciary: Problems and Perspectives [1997] C.U.L.R. 271 (India).

[43]Vinod Rajput, Noida saves 4000 crores as SC does away with Hikes relief to farmers, The Hindustan Times (June 28, 2018, 2:45 PM), http://www.hindustantimes.com/noida/court-directs-up-to-pay-revised-compensation-to-landacquired-by-yamuna-eway-authority/story-kJh8dvrQU4tUicYtreXz4K.html

[44] SP Sathe, supra note 1.