Passage:
There have been several instances of illegitimate interventions by the Indian judiciary, the most common context being the debate between social reform and religious freedom. Article 25 of the Constitution of India mentions the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion while 25(2)(b) stands as an exception to the general rule. Article 25(2)(b) states as follows: “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law- providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.” The above two provisions are often seen contradicting each other with people insisting on freedom of their religion while courts go on making decisions as social reform legislations.
The infamous decision of laying down the Essentially Religious Practices (ERP) Test is a testimony to the overreach. The court initially stated that the religious practices that were ‘essentially religious’ fell under the ambit of Article 25 and were protected from state intervention, wherein only the religious denominations had the right to decide the laws essential to their religion. However, as per the ERP Test, only certain religious practices that are ‘essential to religion’ and fundamental in nature (changing which would alter the very character of the religion) are protected by the Constitution. Although the Constitution does not mention any such pre requisite, the courts have assumed and assigned themselves the power to decide about the practices that are essential to the religion and have further expanded their self-assigned power by conducting interpretation of religious texts and laying down additional tests for determination of religious essentiality without having the relevant expertise to do so. This judicial power breach was clearly witnessed in the Shah Bano case, where adjudication of the courts could have been based on the sections of Criminal Procedure Code. The court instead went on to interpret the Quran and conducted an analysis of verse 241 of the religious text by Justice Chandrachud, who was a secular jurist and not some trained Islamic scholar.
The Judiciary has stepped beyond its limits to even intervene in decisions involving the entertainment industry. In the case of censorship of the movie Jolly LLB II, the Bombay High Court constituted a three-person committee to watch the movie and report on what issues exist in it. In lieu of this report, the directors had to delete the four objectionable scenes from the movie because of the release date being near. This was a clear breach of the judicial powers as per Section 5(b) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 which states that the power to censor movies lies only with the Board of Film Certification. The Act also grants a revisional power to the Government but the courts of the country are not authorized to certify or modify a film. This hitch of judicial overreach soared during the COVID-19 Pandemic, especially during the second wave which shocked the executive owing to the large-scale administrative and health mismanagement. The Allahabad High Court recommended Rs1 crore ex gratia to families of deceased poll workers, because Rs. 30 Lakh as decided by the State was not sufficient. However, the Supreme Court did not show the same alacrity in dealing with the plight of migrant workers returning home during the lockdown. Similarly, Delhi High Court has been almost micromanaging pandemic management, fixing oxygen quota and distribution and issuing contempt notice to the Centre on the oxygen issue. There was a situation where lawyers, and not medical experts, were comparing the benefits of dexamethasone over remdesivir. Other cases of judicial overreach include the imposition of liquor ban near national and state highways, the cancellation of telecom licenses in the 2G case, etc. To conclude, it is imperative for the judiciary to understand that purely political and policy issues that do not involve the resolution of a basic legal issue are outside the purview of the court. In the case of governmental inactions or institutional breakdowns, the responsibility of the superior judiciary is to issue a writ of mandamus or other relevant instruction to the inefficient public authority requiring fulfillment of its legal duties. However, there is a significant contrast between such public authority being ordered to perform and the judiciary taking up such a role on its own. The former is proper judicial involvement, not the latter. The Judiciary has been deemed as the final arbiter in cases of conflict by the Constitution. It is thereby expected that the Judiciary confines itself to the power bestowed to it and respects the independence of the three wings.
Question 1: What according to the passage is the attitude of Indian judiciary?
(a) Diffident
(b) Diabolic
(c) Cunning
(d) Overenthusiastic
Answer: Option (d), because according to the passage, the judiciary is too zealous to assume power in various circumstances and its actions are interfering with those of other authorities, unreasonably.
Question 2: Which of the following institutions have laid down the Essential Religious Practices test?
(a) The legislature.
(b) The constitution of India
(c) The judiciary
(d) The bureaucracy
Answer: Option (c) is the correct answer, because the passage is revolving around judicial over-reach and clearly the passage states that there is no mention of the ERP in the Constitution of India.
Question 3: Find the synonym of the term “censorship”.
(a) Malfeasance
(b) Disallowance
(c) Sombre
(d) Conflicting
Answer: Option (b) is the correct answer and the meaning of it is clear about it.
Question 4: Which of the following hasn’t been cited by the author to prove judicial overreach?
(a) Pandemic situation
(b) Railways
(c) Films
(d) Interpretation of religious texts
Answer: Option (b) is the correct answer and the passage is clear about it.
Question 5: Based on the passage, which of the following statements is correct?
I. Judiciary is the final interpreter of the Constitution.
II. Judiciary should interfere in every case of policy mismatch.
III. The judges in India aren’t experts in all subjects and hence must exercise restraint.
Options:
(a) I AND II
(b) II AND III
(c) II ONLY
(d) I AND III
Answer: Option (d) is the correct answer, because statement II is incorrect, which eliminates all other options.
– Statement I is correct because the passage states, “The Judiciary has been deemed as the final arbiter in cases of conflict by the Constitution.”
– Statement III is correct because clearly the passage through examples has shown as to how judges lack expertise in several areas like medical science, policy making, religious interpretation etc., and yet they do that and that exactly is what the author points to be judicial overreach.
