This article has been written by kommula vikram of Lloyd law college
In general, the doctrine of separation of powers is not explicitly provided for in the Suprema Lex of the Constitution of India, but less it can be done from the scheme of the constitution.
The doctrine of separation of powers establishes the separation of powers between the three branches of the state: legislative, executive and judicial.
If the task of the parliament is to make laws and the task of the executive is to implement the laws, then the task of the judiciary is to interpret the laws. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution in all its glory.
While the issue of whether the Judiciary came within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, there were several times when horns were locked, the issue was finally resolved by the decision in Prem Chand Garg Vs. . Excise Commissioner, who thought that the judiciary is the third wing of the state, let it be functionally independent, without hindering its exciting legalism.
There have been occasions when decisions of the Supreme Court have been brought into focus either to appreciate the spirit of activism of its judges or to criticize judicial supremacy.
No provision caused more controversy than Article 21 of the Constitution, which stipulates the “right to life and personal liberty” – with pen and paper, and the black and white part says: “No one shall be deprived of life or personal liberty”. . personal freedom in a way other than as established by law”
Fair legal interpretation and legalism gave that article enormous dimensions making it a summary article.
One of the first reports to examine the effectiveness of that article in its own article. scope and limits was the case of “Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das” where the Supreme Court said that although Article 21 is among the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and these rights are only for citizens, Article 21 is an important exception. because it also applies to foreigners. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen is important here, as it is a moot point that Article 1
of the Constitution can be applied to non-citizens as a “company” (Chiranjit Lal Chaudary v. UOI) to speak of foreigners – Article 21 is limited to citizens and foreigners and not to companies – whether foreigners or natives.
The fundamental rights affirmed in Part III of the Constitution constitute the spirit of the Suprema Lex, they are protected by Articles 32 and 226, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court. Regarding Article 21 on legal interpretation and activism, a new branch of rights emerged during the decade – the reason being that legal decisions were made according to the scheme of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has the right to be the “law of the land.”
This decision of the Control Committee received a lot of criticism for the following reasons:
1. Tests such as drug analysis test, brain mapping and polygraph test are conducted under the supervision of a doctor under a medical expert, so it is Indian s.
5. Evidence Act, 1872.
2. A narcotics test is fairly complete evidence because a narcotics test is first conducted and then its results are checked and examined by lie detector, polygraph test and brain mapping test.
3. As the world moves forward scientifically in deciding the evidentiary admissibility of past life regression (PLR) tests, banning a lie detector test or brain mapping test is a step backwards.
Points 1 and 2 are very convincing, but not 3. Well, the Supreme Court didn’t answer any of those questions. The appeal of Article 21 to the following case was also seen with convincing eyes.
Conclusion:
The saga of Article 21 is endless and it goes without saying that Article 21 is a welfare legislation; its scope is defined and expanded again and again. No fundamental right has ever been interpreted as wisely and sharply as under Article 21. Legal activism and fair interpretation of legal norms is the key to general welfare in all political fields, an example of this is the saga of Article 21. legal and judicial wisdom must be summed up in the spirit of pro bono publico with the following words: “Salus populi est suprema lex”.
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening