Government and Judiciary Need to Exercise Calm Decision-Making: PreservingCHECKS AND BALANCES is Crucial
Redraft:
The age-old dispute over the power balance between the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive has once again sparked a heated debate. And it seems everyone's got an opinion!
The criticisms levied at the judiciary are a bit excessive, considering the Vice-President, a holder of a Constitutional post, threatens to wage war against the judiciary through political manipulation. He suggested the idea of a national commission to appoint judges, where the executive would also have a say.
Let's clear the air – is the Vice-President overstepping his powers by advocating for an NJAC? Perhaps – but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the freedom of speech to voice disagreements. Truth be told, it seems he's just doing his thing, stirring the pot as only he knows best.
The order by the Supreme Court's two-judge bench does show a hint of overreach, as the President, a Constitutional authority, was given a deadline to make decisions on Bills passed by the legislature, jeopardizing the balance of powers.
When it comes to the governors’ actions or inactions, they can be a real pain, constantly fanning the flames of power struggles. But should these squabbles be resolved by a Constitutional bench instead of just any two judges? That’s a question worth considering. The Union government, of course, has the right to appeal against the order in the top court.
Here’s where the situation becomes more nuanced – the tensions between the political realm and the court system don't just create a bit of a mess but potentially disrupt the foundations of democratic governance. Take, for instance, the infamous Emergency crisis faced by democracy in Indian political history when leaders exploited their mandate from the voters to fuel hostility, sabotaging the rule of law.
In matters of the Collegium of the Supreme Court appointing judges, logic might prevail; however, it opens the door to nepotism and favoritism. The government of the executive, being a party to most legal disputes in the country, can hardly be considered fair if left with the absolute power to appoint judges.
A system where judges appointed by the executive pass judgments on cases involving the state raises serious doubts about fairness. Remember the golden rule: justice must not just be done but must appear to be done.
It's crucial to tackle these significant constitutional matters in an environment free of hostilities and without raising the stakes excessively. As the tango between the legislature, judiciary, and executive unfolds, we must strive to maintain balance and uphold the rule of law.
In India, the Constitution cleverly avoids an absolute separation of powers, allowing overlap and mutual respect among the three branches. The system, however, is currently experiencing noticeable strains. The judiciary's activism is necessary to protect rights, but if it strays too far from its boundaries, it risks becoming an autocratic actor.
Similarly, the politicization of constitutional roles can weaken central-state relationships, jeopardizing democratic fairness and potentially threatening constitutional stability. Thoughtful, restrained debate is needed to find solutions that keep the emphasis on protecting constitutional democracy and guarding the rule of law[1][2][3][5].
Politics and general news have been centered around the controversial proposal by the Vice-President to establish a national commission for appointing judges, which stirs debates over policy-and-legislation and the balance of powers among the legislature, judiciary, and executive. The intricate relationship between the political realm and the court system, when fraught with hostilities, could potentially disrupt the foundations of democratic governance, as shown in the infamous Emergency crisis in Indian political history. It's essential to ensure that fairness and justice are maintained in the appointment of judges to uphold the rule of law, without relying too heavily on one branch of government or allowing for nepotism or favoritism.
