On Friday, Deepak argued on the limitations of the Court’s powers of judicial review. Citing various Supreme Court and High Court judgments, he argued that when a law is framed or a statute promulgated, there is an assumption of constitutionality.
“These judgments also show that only the legislature and the government have the power to deal with social experiments. They say that the Court must not seek an unnecessary confrontation with the legislature which consists of representatives democratically elected by the people. The judgment says that an act of the legislature is not to be declared void unless the violation of the Constitution is so manifest as to leave no room for reasonable doubt,” he said.
He argued that the doctrine of separation of powers is not there to protect the ilaka (jurisdictions) of each arm of the State, but to say that the people’s powers are not to be suppressed by judicial review.
“In our opinion, there is only one ground for declaring an act unconstitutional. It is that there can be no manner of doubt that this violates the Constitution. If there are differing opinions with one opinion saying it is constitutional and the other thinking it to be unconstitutional, then the former must prevail…If judicial aggression is to be the rule in policy, then some issues remain. How legitimate is the government by judges?” he asked.
Source: Barandbench
