This MCQ module is based on: Judicial Review, Activism, PIL & Exercises
TOPIC 18 OF 29
Judicial Review, Activism, PIL & Exercises
🎓 Class 11
Social Science
CBSE
Theory
Ch 6 — Judiciary
⏱ ~25 min
🌐 Language: [gtranslate]
🧠 AI-Powered MCQ Assessment
▲
📝 Worksheet / Assessment
▲
This assessment will be based on: Judicial Review, Activism, PIL & Exercises
Upload images, PDFs, or Word documents to include their content in assessment generation.
Chapter 6 · Judiciary — Part 3: Judicial Review, Judicial Activism, PIL & the Chapter Exercises
A scribbled note from a Tihar prisoner. A petition by an advocate about under-trials languishing in Bihar jails. A case about polluted air in Delhi, fly-ash in Dahanu, sexual harassment at workplaces. Each of these — together with the towering 1973 ruling in Kesavananda Bharati — redefined what an Indian court could do. In this final part we examine the most powerful tools of the Indian judiciary: judicial review, the basic structure doctrine, the rise of judicial activism through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and the delicate balance between Judiciary, Parliament and federalism. We close with the full set of NCERT exercises with model answers, the chapter Summary, and the Key Terms.
6.12 Judicial Review — The Power that Defines the Court
We have seen that the judiciary protects fundamental rights through the writ jurisdiction (Article 32) and through the power to declare a law unconstitutional (Article 13). The Constitution provides two ways in which the Supreme Court can remedy the violation of rights:
- It can restore fundamental rights by issuing writs — Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, and so on (Article 32). High Courts have the same power under Article 226.
- It can declare a law unconstitutional and therefore non-operational (Article 13).
Together these two provisions establish the Supreme Court as the protector of the fundamental rights of the citizen on the one hand, and as the interpreter of the Constitution on the other. The second of the two ways involves judicial review?.
📖 Definition
Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court (or a High Court) to examine the constitutionality of any law. If the Court arrives at the conclusion that the law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, such a law is declared unconstitutional and inapplicable. The term is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution itself; it flows from the fact that India has a written constitution which the Supreme Court is sworn to uphold.
6.12.1 Two Sides of the Review Power
| Ground | Constitutional basis | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of Fundamental Rights | Article 13 + Article 32 | A law that gags the press in violation of Article 19(1)(a) is struck down. |
| Violation of federal distribution of powers | Seventh Schedule + Article 246 | A Union law that legislates on a subject reserved to the State List is struck down. |
Together, the writ powers and the review power of the Court make the judiciary very powerful. The review power means the judiciary can interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by the legislature. Many people believe this enables the judiciary to protect the Constitution effectively and also to protect the rights of citizens. The practice of entertaining PILs (which we shall see in a moment) has further added to this protective role.
6.13 Basic Structure Doctrine — Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
Right after the Constitution came into force, a controversy arose over Parliament’s power to restrict the right to property. Parliament wanted to put restrictions on the right to hold property so that land reforms could be implemented. The Court held that Parliament could not restrict fundamental rights. Parliament then tried to amend the Constitution. But the Court said that even through an amendment a fundamental right could not be abridged.
The questions at the centre of this conflict were:
- What is the scope of the right to private property?
- What is the scope of Parliament’s power to curtail, abridge or abrogate fundamental rights?
- What is the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution?
- Can Parliament make laws that abridge fundamental rights while enforcing Directive Principles?
Between 1967 and 1973 this controversy reached crisis point. Land reform laws, preventive detention laws, reservations in jobs, regulations acquiring private property for public purposes, and laws on compensation for such acquisition — all became flashpoints between legislature and judiciary. In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the case that has shaped the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary ever since.
⚖ Landmark Case · Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
In this case a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that there is a basic structure of the Constitution which nobody — not even Parliament through an amendment — can violate. The Court did two more things. First, it said that the right to property (the disputed issue) was not part of the basic structure and could therefore be suitably abridged. Secondly, the Court reserved to itself the right to decide whether various matters are part of the basic structure. This is perhaps the best example of how the judiciary uses its power to interpret the Constitution.
The ruling changed the nature of conflicts between the legislature and the judiciary. The right to property was eventually taken away from the list of fundamental rights in 1978 (44th Amendment), which also helped change the nature of the relationship between the two organs of government. Through later cases the Supreme Court has identified several features as part of the “basic structure” — including supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, federalism, secularism, free and fair elections, and independence of the judiciary itself (the very ground on which NJAC was struck down in 2015).
6.14 Judicial Activism & the Birth of PIL
Have you heard of the term judicial activism? or Public Interest Litigation (PIL)?? Both these terms are often used in discussions about the judiciary in recent times. Many people think they have revolutionised the functioning of the judiciary and made it more people-friendly.
The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — also called Social Action Litigation (SAL). In the normal course of law, an individual can approach the courts only if she has been personally aggrieved — that is, only when her own rights have been violated. This concept underwent a radical change around 1979.
6.14.1 The Two Founding PILs of 1979–1980
1979 · Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
Bihar under-trials — the first PIL
Newspapers in 1979 carried reports about “under-trials”: prisoners in Bihar who had spent more years in jail awaiting trial than the maximum punishment for the offence of which they were accused. An advocate filed a petition based on these reports — not on his own behalf or as an aggrieved person. The Supreme Court agreed to hear it. This was the first major Public Interest Litigation in India and produced the constitutional declaration that a “speedy trial” is part of the right to life under Article 21.
1980 · Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration
A scribbled note becomes a writ petition
In 1980 a prison inmate of Tihar Jail managed to send a scribbled piece of paper to Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court describing the physical torture of prisoners. The judge converted the letter into a petition. Although the Court later abandoned the practice of considering anonymous letters, this case became one of the pioneers of public interest litigation and revolutionised prisoners’ rights jurisprudence.
These two cases opened the gates for a flood of PILs in which public-spirited citizens and voluntary organisations sought judicial intervention for the protection of existing rights, betterment of life conditions of the poor, protection of the environment, and many other issues in the public interest. PIL has become the most important vehicle of judicial activism. The judiciary, traditionally confined to responding to cases brought before it, began considering cases merely on the basis of newspaper reports and postal complaints. Hence the term judicial activism — describing a more proactive judiciary.
📜 Justice Bhagwati on PIL
It must be remembered that the problems of the poor are qualitatively different from those which have hitherto occupied the attention of the Court, and they need a different kind of judicial approach. If we blindly follow the adversarial procedure in their case, they would never be able to enforce their fundamental rights.
— Justice P. N. Bhagwati, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
6.14.2 How PIL Expanded Rights
Through PIL the Court has expanded the very idea of rights. Clean air, unpolluted water, decent living conditions are rights of society as a whole. So individuals as parts of society must have the right to seek justice wherever such rights are violated. Through PIL and the judicial activism of the post-1980 period, the judiciary has shown readiness to consider the rights of those who cannot easily approach the courts. Public-spirited citizens, social organisations and lawyers were allowed to file petitions on behalf of the needy and the deprived.
1997 · Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
Sexual harassment at the workplace — the Vishaka Guidelines
Following the brutal gang-rape of a social worker, Bhanwari Devi, who tried to prevent a child marriage, women’s organisations filed a PIL. With no specific Indian law on workplace sexual harassment, the Supreme Court read Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 together to lay down the binding Vishaka Guidelines — which functioned as the law of the land until Parliament finally enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act in 2013.
M C Mehta cases · Environmental jurisprudence
From the Oleum gas leak to Delhi’s CNG buses
Through a long string of PILs filed by advocate M. C. Mehta, the Supreme Court built India’s environmental law — the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, the “public trust” doctrine, and concrete orders such as moving Delhi’s entire commercial bus fleet to CNG. The Court also ordered Reliance Energy to pay Rs 300 crore in 2005 to chikoo-growing farmers in Dahanu whose orchards were ruined by fly-ash from a thermal power plant.
6.14.3 Impact — Positive and Negative
| Positive impact | Negative impact |
|---|---|
| Democratised the judicial system — not just individuals but groups can now access the courts. | Has overburdened the courts with PILs, increasing pendency. |
| Forced executive accountability for policies and corruption. | Has blurred the line of distinction between executive, legislature and judiciary. |
| Made elections fairer — the Court ordered candidates to file affidavits showing assets, income and educational qualifications. | Court has handled tasks that belong to the executive (e.g., reducing pollution, electoral reforms). |
| Expanded the meaning of fundamental rights to include clean air, livelihood, dignity, speedy trial. | Some feel the balance among the three organs has become very delicate. |
⚠ The democratic concern
Democratic government is based on each organ of government respecting the powers and jurisdiction of the others. If the judiciary repeatedly steps into administrative matters, it may strain this principle of mutual respect — even when the Court’s motives are unimpeachable.
YOU ARE THE JUDGE — Slums and the Right to Life
Bloom: L5 Evaluate
NCERT places this dilemma before you: a group of citizens approach the court through a PIL asking for an order to the city municipal authorities to remove slums and beautify the city to attract investors. They argue this is in the “public interest”. The slum residents respond that this would encroach on their right to life, which is more central to public interest than a clean city.
- Identify the two competing claims of “public interest”.
- Locate each in the Constitution — right to life under Article 21, and the State’s authority over public health and city planning.
- Write a short judgement explaining whose “public interest” should prevail and why.
✅ Pointers
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985) that the right to livelihood is a part of the right to life under Article 21. Slums cannot be cleared without due process and rehabilitation. Aesthetic improvement of a city may be a legitimate state objective, but it cannot override the fundamental rights of the poorest. A judge would therefore likely refuse the PIL or direct the city to first arrange resettlement before any demolition.
6.15 Judiciary, Parliament & Federalism — The Ongoing Balance
The Court has been active not only on rights but also in preventing the subversion of the Constitution through political practice. Areas once considered beyond the scope of judicial review — powers of the President and the Governor, for example — have been brought under the courts’ purview. The Supreme Court has also issued directions to the CBI to initiate investigations against politicians and bureaucrats in major cases (the Hawala case, the Narasimha Rao case, illegal allotment of petrol pumps). Many of these are products of judicial activism.
The Indian Constitution is based on a delicate principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances. Each organ has a clear area of functioning. Parliament is supreme in making laws and amending the Constitution; the executive is supreme in implementing them; the judiciary is supreme in settling disputes and deciding whether the laws made are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Despite this clear-cut division, the conflict between Parliament and judiciary — and between executive and judiciary — has been a recurrent theme of Indian politics.
The three organs share overlapping zones — Parliament removes judges, the executive appoints them, the judiciary reviews both. The Indian design is checks and balances, not a rigid wall.
6.15.1 Issues Still Unresolved
Some issues remain a bone of contention between Parliament and the judiciary. Can the judiciary intervene in and regulate the functioning of the legislatures? In a parliamentary system, the legislature has the power to govern itself and regulate the behaviour of its members. The legislature can punish a person whom it holds guilty of breaching its privileges. Can such a person seek protection of the courts? Can a member of the legislature against whom the legislature has taken disciplinary action get protection from the court? These issues are unresolved and are matters of potential conflict.
Similarly, the Constitution provides that the conduct of judges cannot be discussed in Parliament. There have been several instances where Parliament and State legislatures have cast aspersions on the functioning of the judiciary, and the judiciary too has criticised the legislatures and issued instructions about the conduct of legislative business. The legislatures see this as violating the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. These episodes show how delicate the balance between any two organs of government is, and how important it is for each organ to respect the authority of the others.
💡 Conclusion (NCERT)
In spite of the tensions that arise from time to time between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, the prestige of the Indian judiciary has increased considerably. There are also many more expectations from the judiciary today — about how easily acquittals are granted, why witnesses change their testimonies in favour of the wealthy, and so on. These are issues about which the judiciary itself is concerned. Democracy hinges on the delicate balance of power between the judiciary and Parliament, and both institutions have to function within the limits set by the Constitution.
6.16 NCERT Exercises — with Model Answers
1What are the different ways in which the independence of the judiciary is ensured? Choose the odd ones out: (i) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is consulted in the appointment of other judges of the Supreme Court. (ii) Judges are generally not removed before the age of retirement. (iii) Judge of a High Court cannot be transferred to another High Court. (iv) Parliament has no say in the appointment of judges.
Answer: The independence of the judiciary is ensured by: consultation with the CJI in appointments (i), security of tenure till retirement (ii), and exclusion of Parliament from appointments (iv) — all of which protect judges from political pressure. The odd one out is (iii) — this is incorrect. Under Article 222, the President can transfer a judge from one High Court to another after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. Such transfers do happen and do not, by themselves, threaten judicial independence.
2Does independence of the judiciary mean that the judiciary is not accountable to anyone? Write your answer in not more than 100 words.
Answer: No. Independence of the judiciary does not mean unaccountability. Judges are independent of executive and legislative pressure so that they can decide without fear or favour, but they remain accountable to the Constitution, to democratic traditions, and to the people. They must give reasoned judgments open to public scrutiny, follow precedent, and act within their jurisdiction. Higher courts review lower courts. Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed by Parliament under a difficult special-majority procedure for proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Independence is therefore a shield from interference, not a licence for arbitrariness.
3What are the different provisions in the Constitution in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary?
Answer: The Constitution protects judicial independence through several interlocking provisions: (a) appointments are made by the President in consultation with the CJI and senior judges (collegium), keeping party politics at arm’s length; (b) judges hold office until 65 (SC) or 62 (HC) — security of tenure; (c) removal only by special majority of both Houses of Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity (Article 124(4)); (d) salaries and allowances are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not voted upon by the legislature; (e) judges’ salaries cannot be reduced during their tenure (except during a financial emergency); (f) contempt of court power protects judges from unfair criticism; (g) Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of judges except during a removal motion; (h) a retired Supreme Court judge cannot plead before any court in India.
4Read the news report (Supreme Court orders REL to pay Rs 300 crore to Dahanu farmers, 24 March 2005) and identify: What is the case about? Who has been the beneficiary? Who is the petitioner? Visualise the arguments of the company and of the farmers.
Answer:
- What is the case about? Pollution — specifically, fly ash from a thermal power plant operated by Reliance Energy at Dahanu (150 km from Mumbai) which contaminated groundwater, ruined the chikoo-fruit harvest, and damaged fisheries and forest cover. The Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority had ordered the plant to install pollution-control equipment; despite a Supreme Court order backing it, the plant was not set up.
- Who has been the beneficiary? The chikoo growers and other farmers of Dahanu, who were awarded Rs 300 crore as compensation/bank guarantee.
- Who is the petitioner? The chikoo growers who petitioned against the pollution caused by the thermal power plant (with support from environmental groups and the Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority).
- Likely arguments of Reliance Energy: The plant supplies essential power; technology to control fly-ash takes time to install; the previous owner is to blame for non-installation; the original plant pre-dated tighter pollution norms; livelihood of plant workers must be considered.
- Likely arguments of the farmers: Their right to livelihood and clean environment under Article 21 has been violated; the “polluter pays” principle requires the company to pay damages and clean up; the prior court order has been ignored; the chikoo orchards, fisheries and forests are an irreplaceable ecological and economic asset.
5Read the news report (Centre, Delhi join hands on CNG issue, The Hindu, 23 September 2001) and identify the governments at different levels, the role of the Supreme Court, the working of judiciary and executive, and the policy/legislation/implementation/interpretation issues involved.
Answer:
- Governments at different levels: The Union (Central) Government (represented by the Petroleum Minister Mr Ram Naik) and the State Government of Delhi (represented by Chief Minister Ms Sheila Dikshit). Both are required to coordinate and file affidavits in the Supreme Court.
- Role of the Supreme Court: The Court had earlier directed that all commercial vehicles in Delhi must run on CNG to reduce air pollution. It refused to relax the CNG norm for buses but did not insist on CNG for taxis and auto-rickshaws. Through the M C Mehta line of PILs, the Court was driving environmental policy in Delhi.
- Working of judiciary and executive: The judiciary set the standard (CNG-only commercial fleet). The executive’s job was to implement it — arrange CNG supply, set up filling stations, convert the bus fleet. When the executive struggled with implementation, it had to go back to the Court for relaxation or extension — an example of judicial review and executive accountability working together.
- Policy issues: Whether to phase out non-CNG commercial vehicles; whether to allow low-sulphur diesel as a parallel fuel; whether to discourage CNG use by private cars to ration the limited pipeline supply.
- Legislation: Implementation of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Motor Vehicles Act — possibly requiring fresh notifications.
- Implementation: Number of CNG buses, queues at filling stations, supply of CNG, deadlines.
- Interpretation of law: Whether the right to a healthy environment under Article 21 (as expanded by judicial activism) requires CNG-only commercial vehicles; whether the Mashelkar Committee’s “Auto Fuel Policy” recommendations should modify the deadline.
6A statement about Ecuador (judges not bound by precedent; appellate judges need not give written reasons). What similarities or differences do you find between this and the Indian judicial system?
Answer: The two systems are sharply different. India follows the doctrine of binding precedent: under Article 141, the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. A High Court’s ruling binds the courts subordinate to it. Indian judgments must give reasons in writing — reasoned decisions are essential for transparency and for further appeals. In Ecuador, as the passage describes, judges are not bound by higher courts’ rulings and need not provide written reasons; a judge could decide one way today and the opposite way tomorrow on similar facts. The similarities are limited: both systems have higher and lower courts, but the Indian system enjoys the predictability, equality and accountability that come from binding precedent and written, reviewable judgments — pillars of the rule of law that the Ecuadorian system lacks.
7Read the following statements and match them with the different jurisdictions of the Supreme Court — Original, Appellate, Advisory: (i) The government wanted to know if it can pass a law about the citizenship status of residents of Pakistan-occupied areas of Jammu and Kashmir. (ii) To resolve the dispute about river Cauvery, the government of Tamil Nadu wants to approach the court. (iii) Court rejected the appeal by people against the eviction from the dam site.
Answer:
- (i) Advisory jurisdiction — this is a question of law and public importance on which the President can refer the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
- (ii) Original jurisdiction — an inter-State water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka (and other riparian States) is a federal dispute under Article 131, which the Supreme Court alone can decide at first instance.
- (iii) Appellate jurisdiction — the petitioners had moved up from a lower court (or High Court) to the Supreme Court, which exercised its appellate power to consider and reject the appeal.
8In what way can public interest litigation help the poor?
Answer: PIL helps the poor in several decisive ways. First, it relaxes the rule of locus standi — a public-spirited citizen, an advocate, or a voluntary organisation can file a petition on behalf of those who cannot themselves approach the court. The poor, the illiterate, prisoners, bonded labourers, slum-dwellers and child workers benefit directly. Second, the Court can take cognizance of matters even on the basis of newspaper reports, postcards or letters — reducing procedural and financial barriers. Third, PIL has expanded the scope of fundamental rights under Article 21 to include the right to livelihood, clean environment, speedy trial, dignified working conditions, food, shelter and health — all rights of special importance to the poor. Fourth, in cases such as Hussainara Khatoon, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Sunil Batra, Olga Tellis and Vishaka, courts have given concrete relief to the most deprived sections. PIL has thus transformed the Indian judiciary from a forum for the rich into a tool of social justice.
9Do you think that judicial activism can lead to a conflict between the judiciary and the executive? Why?
Answer: Yes, judicial activism can — and historically has — produced conflict between the judiciary and the executive. Through PIL and other instruments, the courts have ordered the executive to clean rivers, shift bus fleets to CNG, investigate corruption (Hawala case, Narasimha Rao case), regulate auto-emissions, prevent illegal mining, and enforce environmental standards. These are matters that, strictly speaking, fall in the domain of the executive. When courts issue continuing mandamus, set deadlines or supervise compliance, the executive sees this as encroachment on its policy space. The conflict is sharpest when the Court’s direction implies expenditure or a particular administrative choice that the executive considers impractical. The democratic principle of mutual respect among organs requires that judicial activism stay within constitutional limits — intervene where the executive has failed to protect rights, but not become a parallel administration.
10How is judicial activism related to the protection of fundamental rights? Has it helped in expanding the scope of fundamental rights?
Answer: Judicial activism is intimately tied to the protection of fundamental rights. Through PIL, the Court relaxed the rule that only an aggrieved person could approach it — this immediately made fundamental rights real for those who could not themselves seek justice (prisoners, child labourers, women, the urban poor, environmental victims). The Court has also expanded the meaning of existing rights: under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) it has read in the right to livelihood (Olga Tellis), the right to a clean environment (M C Mehta cases), the right to speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon), the right to dignity at the workplace (Vishaka), the right to education (Mohini Jain, Unni Krishnan), the right to health, the right to shelter and the right to legal aid. Article 14 (equality) and Article 19 (free speech) have also been broadened. Without judicial activism, many of these dimensions of fundamental rights would still be theoretical. Activism, by giving rights teeth and a wide reach, has made the Constitution’s promise of justice accessible to ordinary Indians.
6.17 Chapter Summary
Key Takeaways — Chapter 6 at a Glance
- The judiciary protects the rule of law, settles disputes, safeguards rights, and prevents democracy from sliding into dictatorship. To do this it must be independent.
- The Constitution protects independence through: appointments shielded from politics, security of tenure, financial independence, contempt powers, no parliamentary discussion of judges’ conduct, and a difficult removal procedure (special majority on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity).
- Article 124 empowers the President to appoint Supreme Court judges in consultation with the CJI. The collegium system, born of the First (1982), Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases, makes the CJI plus four senior-most judges decisive on names. The 2015 NJAC verdict struck down Parliament’s attempt to replace the collegium.
- India has a single integrated judiciary: Supreme Court at the apex, 25 High Courts (Article 214), District Courts and Subordinate Courts. Lok Adalats and tribunals supplement the regular pyramid.
- The Supreme Court has four jurisdictions: Original (Article 131, federal disputes), Writ (Article 32, fundamental rights), Appellate (highest court of appeal), and Advisory (Article 143, opinions to the President), plus the special-leave power under Article 136.
- Judicial review is the power to declare any law or executive order unconstitutional. The 1973 ruling in Kesavananda Bharati introduced the basic structure doctrine — Parliament cannot amend away the basic features of the Constitution.
- Judicial activism, channeled mainly through Public Interest Litigation, has democratised access to courts (Hussainara Khatoon 1979, Sunil Batra 1980), expanded fundamental rights (Vishaka 1997, Olga Tellis, Bandhua Mukti Morcha) and created a robust environmental jurisprudence (M C Mehta cases). It has also raised concerns about overreach.
- Indian democracy depends on limited separation of powers and checks and balances. Conflicts between Parliament and the judiciary — over property rights, the amending power, contempt and privileges — persist, but the system survives by mutual respect.
6.18 Key Terms
Rule of lawEqual subjection of all persons — including the government — to the same law applied by independent courts.
Independence of judiciaryFreedom of judges to decide cases purely on law and the Constitution, without interference from the executive or legislature.
CollegiumThe CJI plus the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court who recommend names for judicial appointments.
NJACThe National Judicial Appointments Commission, created by the 99th Amendment in 2014 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Special majorityA majority of the total membership of each House plus a two-thirds majority of those present and voting — required to remove a judge or amend the Constitution.
Single integrated judiciaryOne pyramid of courts — Supreme Court at the apex, then High Courts, then District and Subordinate Courts — that interprets both Union and State law.
Original jurisdictionPower of the Supreme Court (Article 131) to hear inter-State and Centre–State disputes at first instance.
Writ jurisdictionPower of the Supreme Court (Article 32) and High Courts (Article 226) to issue Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari and Quo Warranto.
Appellate jurisdictionPower to reconsider and revise the decisions of lower courts in civil, criminal and constitutional cases.
Advisory jurisdictionPower of the Supreme Court (Article 143) to advise the President on questions of law and public importance — opinion not binding.
Judicial reviewPower of the Supreme Court (or High Courts) to examine and strike down any law or executive order inconsistent with the Constitution.
Basic structureThe doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) that Parliament cannot amend the essential features of the Constitution — e.g., supremacy of the Constitution, judicial review, federalism, secularism, judicial independence.
Judicial activismA more proactive role of the judiciary in protecting rights and supervising executive action, often through PIL.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)A petition filed in court by any public-spirited person or group on behalf of those whose rights have been violated — a relaxation of the traditional locus standi rule. Also known as Social Action Litigation (SAL).
Lok AdalatA statutory people’s court that resolves disputes by compromise; awards have the force of a civil court decree.
Vishaka case (1997)The Supreme Court’s ruling, on a PIL filed after the rape of social worker Bhanwari Devi, that laid down binding guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace.
M C Mehta casesA long line of environmental PILs filed by advocate M. C. Mehta that built the polluter-pays principle, the precautionary principle, and orders such as Delhi’s CNG-bus mandate.
Contempt of courtThe court’s power to punish acts that lower its authority or interfere with the administration of justice.
📋
Competency-Based Questions — Part 3
Case Study: A retired schoolteacher, troubled by a newspaper report about hundreds of children working in unsafe firecracker units, files a petition in the Supreme Court asking for their rescue, rehabilitation and the closure of the units. She is not herself a victim. The State government argues that she has no locus standi, and that the Court is straying into administrative territory.
Q1. The doctrine that Parliament cannot amend the “basic structure” of the Constitution was laid down in:
L1 RememberAnswer: (B) — The 13-judge bench in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) ruled that there is a basic structure of the Constitution which not even Parliament, through an amendment, can violate.
Q2. Which case is widely regarded as the first major Public Interest Litigation in India?
L2 UnderstandAnswer: (C) — Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), arising from newspaper reports about Bihar under-trials, is considered the first major PIL. It led to the constitutional declaration that speedy trial is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Q3. In about 60 words, evaluate whether judicial activism has strengthened or weakened Indian democracy. Use one positive and one negative example.
L5 EvaluateModel Answer: On balance, judicial activism has strengthened Indian democracy. Vishaka (1997) gave women a binding shield against workplace harassment when no statute existed; the Bihar under-trials PIL (1979) freed thousands held longer than their maximum sentences. But activism has costs: when courts manage Delhi’s air policy or transport fleets, the executive’s policy space shrinks and accountability blurs. Strengthened — provided the judiciary stays within constitutional limits.
HOT Q. The retired teacher in the case study is told she has no locus standi. Construct an argument, drawing on Justice Bhagwati’s reasoning in Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984), that locus standi must be relaxed in such cases.
L6 CreateHint: Justice Bhagwati noted that the problems of the poor are qualitatively different and require a different judicial approach — if courts blindly insist on the adversarial requirement that only the personally aggrieved can sue, the rights of those who cannot themselves approach the court will remain a dead letter. Children working in firecracker units cannot file petitions; PIL exists precisely to let public-spirited citizens stand in for them. Insisting on traditional locus standi here would defeat the right to life under Article 21.
⚖ Assertion–Reason Questions — Part 3
Options:
(A) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
(B) Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
(C) A is true, but R is false.
(D) A is false, but R is true.
(A) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
(B) Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
(C) A is true, but R is false.
(D) A is false, but R is true.
Assertion (A): Parliament cannot amend the basic structure of the Constitution.
Reason (R): The Supreme Court ruled in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) that there are essential features of the Constitution which cannot be destroyed even by a constitutional amendment.
Answer: (A) — Both statements are true and R is the correct constitutional reason. The basic structure doctrine is the precise judicial creation that limits Parliament’s amending power under Article 368.
Assertion (A): Public Interest Litigation has helped the poor in obtaining justice.
Reason (R): PIL allows only personally-aggrieved persons to approach the court, ensuring genuine cases are heard.
Answer: (C) — A is true: PIL has been a powerful tool for the poor. R is false: the whole point of PIL is the opposite — it relaxes the rule of locus standi and allows public-spirited persons or organisations to file petitions on behalf of those who cannot themselves approach the court.
Assertion (A): Judicial review can lead to friction between the judiciary and Parliament.
Reason (R): The Supreme Court can declare a law passed by Parliament unconstitutional if it violates fundamental rights or the federal distribution of powers.
Answer: (A) — Both statements are true and R is the correct reason. The very fact that the Court can strike down legislation puts it in potential conflict with Parliament — visible in the property-rights battle of 1950s–1970s and in the 2015 NJAC verdict.
AI Tutor
Class 11 Political Science — Indian Constitution at Work
Ready