Background

A recent incident involving Justice V Srishananda of the Karnataka High Court has raised serious concerns regarding judicial comments and conduct. During a hearing, Justice Srishananda referred to a locality in Bengaluru as being “in Pakistan” and made an objectionable remark against a female lawyer. Although he subsequently apologized, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, expressed serious concern, highlighting the rarity of such judicial reproach.

Constitutional Framework for Judicial Discipline

Impeachment: The Sole Recourse

Judges of constitutional courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, enjoy substantial protections to maintain independence from executive interference. However, this raises the question of accountability: who oversees the judiciary?

• Article 124(4): This article outlines that judges can only be removed through impeachment, which requires a political process involving both Houses of Parliament. The grounds for impeachment are limited to "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity."
• High Standards for Impeachment: The necessity for a two-thirds majority in both Houses makes successful impeachment exceedingly rare. Historically, only five impeachment proceedings have been initiated, with only one resulting in successful impeachment (Justice Soumitra Sen).

Challenges in Addressing Judicial Misconduct

Certain actions, such as indiscipline or bias, may not meet the impeachment standard but still warrant attention. The Supreme Court faces a dilemma: how to address these issues without the option of impeachment.

Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability

Judicial Intervention

The Supreme Court can intervene through judicial action, as evidenced by past cases:

• Contempt of Court: In 2017, the Supreme Court sentenced Calcutta High Court’s Justice C S Karnan to six months’ imprisonment for contempt. This case raised concerns about one constitutional court punishing judges of another, as it set a precarious precedent.

Transfer Policy

The Supreme Court also influences High Court judges through its Collegium system:

• Collegium Recommendations: The Collegium recommends the transfer of judges, which can serve as a disciplinary tool. The case of Justice P D Dinakaran illustrates this practice. Facing allegations of corruption, he was transferred from Karnataka to Sikkim, a move criticized as merely “transferring corruption.”

Conclusion

The incident involving Justice Srishananda underscores the complexities of judicial accountability in India. While the Constitution provides for impeachment as the only formal recourse against errant judges, the high threshold for such proceedings necessitates alternative mechanisms for maintaining judicial integrity. The Supreme Court's ability to intervene and the use of transfer policies are critical components in addressing judicial misconduct, but they also raise questions about the balance between accountability and judicial independence.

Why is it in the News?

The process of judicial review should be strong, immediate, and unambiguous in the case of statutes that are obviously unconstitutional or divisive.

Context:

• The role of judicial review has become increasingly significant in contemporary times.
• The Supreme Court of India is currently examining a crucial case regarding the constitutionality of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and its associated rules.
• The ambiguity in these rules has raised concerns, especially for applicants whose citizenship requests have been denied, highlighting the urgent need for redress.
• Additionally, the issue of dual citizenship for foreign applicants, without renouncing their original citizenship, has created a conflict with the law.
• This ambiguity goes against the Parent Act's spirit, as some petitioners pointed out.

Legislative Malice, Judicial Review, and the Challenge of Populist Regimes:

• Constitutional courts do not routinely interdict statutes or statutory rules, as laws passed by Parliament are generally presumed valid unless proven to contravene constitutional provisions.
  • Moreover, the legal doctrine maintains that malice cannot typically be attributed to the legislative process, as established in Manish Kumar vs Union of India (2021).
• In Gurudevdatta Vikoos Maryadit vs State Of Maharashtra (2001), the Supreme Court further emphasized that "legislative malice is beyond the pale of jurisdiction of the law courts."
  • However, this conventional wisdom may be insufficient when addressing the unique challenges posed by populist regimes employing motivated legislation.
• As populist governments worldwide increasingly weaponize legislation to further their political agendas, the question arises as to whether constitutional courts should reconsider their stance on legislative malice.
  • Given the potential for populist regimes to undermine democratic principles and erode the rule of law, the need for robust judicial review has never been greater.
• In light of these challenges, a careful reevaluation of the limits of judicial intervention may be necessary to ensure that the rights and freedoms enshrined in constitutional democracies are protected from malicious legislative actions.

Judicial Challenges and Lessons from the Recent Cases:

• Recent cases have highlighted the pressing need for a more proactive judiciary in safeguarding democratic principles and the rule of law.
• In Vivek Narayan Sharma vs Union of India (2023), the irreversible consequences of the absence of judicial intervention regarding Kashmir's special status were brought to the forefront.
• The Anoop Baranwal vs Union of India (2023) case underscored the necessity for an independent body to select the Election Commission of India (ECI).
  • However, the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, reintroduced the "Prime Minister's Committee" system for ECI appointments, raising concerns about the impartiality of the selection process.
• When this Act was challenged in Jaya Thakur vs Union of India (2024), the Court declined to halt its implementation, citing the presumption of validity.
  • This decision exemplifies how an overly deferential approach to legislative actions can potentially jeopardize democratic institutions and processes.

Case Studies and Implications of Targeted Legislation:

• The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA): CAA exemplifies targeted legislation, as it explicitly excludes Muslims from the citizenship application process, demonstrating a clear case of legislative malice through religious categorization.
• Tripple Talaq case: Another instance of targeted legislation is the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act (2019), which criminalized instant triple talaq.
  • Despite the Supreme Court declaring instant triple talaq void in Shayara Bano (2017), the Act's criminalization of an already legally invalid practice appears excessive and unnecessary.
• Unintended effects: Unintended consequences have arisen from the triple talaq legislation, as some individuals now resort to alternative divorce methods or desertion to avoid potential legal repercussions.
  • Although the law aimed to protect Muslim women, it has paradoxically worsened their situation.
  • Furthermore, such divisive measures have inspired similar legislation in other states, such as anti-conversion laws, perpetuating social divisions.
• These cases reveal the need for a vigilant judiciary to scrutinize targeted legislation and ensure that laws do not perpetuate discrimination or undermine fundamental rights.
  • Addressing legislative malice is essential for preserving the integrity of democratic institutions and upholding constitutional principles.

Judicial Scrutiny in Contemporary Politics: International Perspectives and Indian Precedents

• The Evolution of Judicial Scrutiny in Modern Politics: Traditionally, the United States has been cautious about judicial nullification of statutes based on malicious intent.
  • John Hart Ely argued that using the Constitution to penalize perceived ill intentions of political leaders is inappropriate.
• Susannah W. Pollvogt's Viewpoint on Discriminatory Law: However, in today's political climate, where legislative actions driven by malice are increasingly common, a growing need for more rigorous judicial scrutiny has emerged.
  • Scholar Susannah W. Pollvogt contends that animus, or hostility, can never justify discriminatory state actions under equal protection analysis.
  • She cites the United States Dept. of Agriculture vs Moreno (1973) to illustrate how legislation targeting specific groups reflects discriminatory intent and a desire to cause harm.
• Indian Legal Precedents for Judicial Intervention: In India, there are instances where the Supreme Court has intervened to halt the implementation of parliamentary legislation.
  • In Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2007), the Court issued a judicial injunction regarding the allocation of a 27% quota for Other Backward Community (OBC) candidates in professional colleges.
• More recently, in Rakesh Vaishnav vs Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court's stay order on three controversial farm laws effectively prevented their enforcement.
  • This intervention eventually led to the government's withdrawal of the laws amidst widespread farmer protests.
• These cases demonstrate the vital role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights and democratic principles.
• As legislative malice becomes more prevalent, judicial scrutiny must evolve to ensure that laws do not perpetuate discrimination or undermine constitutional values.

Conclusion

To protect constitutional principles and democratic values, judicial review must be prompt, vigorous, and unambiguous when confronted with divisive or unconstitutional statutes. The Supreme Court should learn from its past decisions and recognize the political impact of its actions, particularly during critical moments. Delayed adjudication can render constitutional review ineffective, making time-sensitive intervention essential in addressing malicious and unconstitutional legislation.

Why is it in the News?

The Supreme Court recently ordered the release of NewsClick Editor Prabir Purkayastha after hearing his plea, challenging the arrest by Delhi Police in an Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case.

Context:

• The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India reaffirms its dedication to due process, dispelling assertions of subservience to the executive branch.
• Through a landmark judgment, the Court underscored the indispensable role of due process, especially concerning the arrest and detention of Prabir Purkayastha, founder-editor of Newsclick.
• This verdict emphasizes the crucial disparity between reasons for arrest and the grounds for arrest, emphasizing that the latter must be tailored to the individual and formally communicated in writing to safeguard personal liberty.

Why did the Supreme Court Invalidate Purkayastha’s Arrest?

• The court invalidated the arrest due to the absence of provided grounds, citing a precedent set in the Pankaj Bansal case (2023).
  • This landmark ruling emphasized the constitutional right, under Article 22(1), to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing, deeming any infringement of this right as vitiating the arrest and remand process.
• Furthermore, the verdict underscored the fundamental and statutory right of an arrested person to receive a written copy of the grounds of arrest without exception.
  • The court criticized the clandestine manner in which the procedure was conducted, noting that the accused was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself and avail legal representation.
• Additionally, the judgment clarified that an FIR serves to initiate criminal proceedings and is not exhaustive in detailing grounds of arrest.
  • The court emphasized that the grounds of arrest must convey specific, personal facts to the accused, distinct from general reasons for arrest.

What is the Due Process of Law?

• Due process of law is a foundational legal principle that ensures the fair and just application of laws while protecting individual rights.
• The concept requires the state to adhere to established legal rules and principles in every case, ensuring that all legal rights owed to a person are respected.
• It serves as a safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of government power.

Significance:

• Fairness and Reasonableness: Due process emphasizes fairness, reasonableness, justness, and non-arbitrariness in legal proceedings.
• Invalidation of Inequality: Any procedural inequality in the law can be rendered invalid under due process.
• Legislative Oversight: Courts consider legislative intent while evaluating statutes in light of due process.
• Protection of Individual Rights: Due process emphasizes the importance of individual rights and grants courts the authority to nullify biased laws.
• Adherence to Basic Legal Procedures: Laws must follow a fundamental process to receive state assent.

Historical Background:

• First mentioned in a statute by British King Edward III in the 14th century.
• The Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution (1791) introduced due process in a constitutional framework.
• In India, due process was invoked by freedom fighters against unjust colonial laws.
• The Constituent Assembly considered including due process in India's Constitution but ultimately adopted a "procedure established by law" instead.

Evolution through Case Laws:

• The Supreme Court's interpretation of due process evolved over time.
• Initial judgments, such as A K Gopalan (1950) and ADM Jabalpur (1976), limited due process by focusing on the narrow meaning of "procedure established by law."
• The Bank Nationalisation case (1970) extended due process to property rights.
• The landmark Maneka Gandhi case (1978) established due process as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, requiring laws to be reasonable, just, fair, and non-arbitrary.

Concerns Regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) 1967 and Due Process of Law:

The UAPA 1967 raises concerns regarding due process of law due to several provisions that deviate from established criminal law principles. These include:

• Extended Remand and Custody Periods: UAPA allows for 30-day remand orders instead of the usual 15 days and extends the maximum period of judicial custody before filing a chargesheet from 90 to 180 days.
  • In the 2023 Pramod Singla case, the Supreme Court highlighted the potential for abuse in preventive detention laws and emphasized the need for strict procedural adherence.
• Controversial Bail Provisions: Section 43D(5) of the Act makes obtaining bail extremely difficult for suspects if the court believes there are reasonable grounds to presume the charges are true.
  • The accused must prove the case is false without inviting the court to evaluate evidence, which human rights defenders argue is draconian and undermines due process.
• Expanded Scope Over Time: The Act was amended in 2004 and 2013 to broaden its coverage, including the declaration of unlawful associations, punishment for terrorist acts, and activities threatening the country's security.
  • This expanded scope, along with an increased ban on organizations from two to five years, raises concerns about potential misuse and erosion of due process protections.
• Pendency of Cases: According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), over 12,000 people were imprisoned under such laws in 2021, with 76% being undertrials in 2022.
  • Only 18% of UAPA cases result in conviction, and there is an alarming 89% pendency rate for UAPA cases in courts.
  • This raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of the Act in ensuring due process.

Achieving a Balance Between State Security and Due Process of Law:

Ensuring national security while preserving due process of law requires a nuanced approach that respects individual rights and maintains checks on state power. The following strategies can help achieve this balance:

• Clear Legal Framework: Establish precise laws that define the limits and procedures for state actions in the name of security.
  • This framework should ensure accountability and prevent misuse of authority.
  • A parliamentary committee can oversee and recommend changes to security legislation.
• Strengthened Judicial Oversight: Enhance judicial mechanisms to review and check arbitrary actions by state authorities, including scrutinizing the legality of detentions and other security measures.
  • A judicial review committee can assess cases under laws like the UAPA.
• Independent Monitoring Bodies: Create independent bodies to monitor the implementation of security laws and investigate abuses.
  • These entities should hold state actors accountable, with organizations like the National Commission for Minorities and NHRC playing crucial roles.
• Human Rights Training: Train law enforcement and security personnel on human rights standards, emphasizing the importance of protecting individual liberties while maintaining security.
  • Develop training programs in collaboration with institutions such as the National Police Academy.
• Public Participation: Encourage public engagement in security policy discussions through platforms like MyGov.
  • This fosters transparency and acceptance of policies that balance security and rights.
• International Cooperation: Collaborate with international organizations like UNESCO and press freedom groups to promote best practices, upholding press freedom and ensuring a safe environment for journalists and media workers, as outlined in the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists.

Conclusion

As India continues to evolve, it is crucial to ensure that stringent laws, such as the UAPA, do not overshadow the fundamental rights of its citizens. Achieving a balance between state security and individual liberties is vital not only for the protection of personal freedoms but also as a testament to the strength and integrity of India's democratic society. By fostering a legal and constitutional ethos that values this equilibrium, India can pave the way for continued progress, safeguarding the well-being of its people and the future of its democracy.

Why is it in the News?

The government must put in place measures to regulate standard essential patents before the judiciary causes further damage to India’s manufacturing dreams.

Context:

• The emergence of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and their implications for India's telecom manufacturing industry has become a significant policy issue.
• However, the utilization of SEPs by technology firms presents hurdles, potentially jeopardizing India's domestic manufacturing sector.
• Thus, it is crucial to delve into the intricacies of this matter, scrutinizing the role of SEPs, the regulatory challenges they present, and the necessity for regulatory action.

What are Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)?

• EPS are patents indispensable for implementing a technical standard, particularly prominent in industries like telecommunications reliant on standards such as 3G, 4G, and 5G for seamless device and network communication.
• Typically owned by entities or individuals, these patents are vital for guaranteeing the interoperability and compatibility of products and technologies adhering to specific standards.
• Critical for fostering interoperability and competitiveness in the cellular phone market, EPS covers technologies adopted as industry standards.
• Despite their significance, conflicts over EPS licensing and infringement are common, often resulting in legal disputes and negotiations between companies and patent holders to establish equitable licensing terms.

Significance of Essential Patents and Regulatory Hurdles:

• Essential Patents (EPs) such as CDMA, GSM, and LTE serve as the linchpin of technological standards in the telecom industry, ensuring seamless compatibility among various cellular phone brands.
• However, the standard-setting process, predominantly governed by private Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs), limits India's influence in shaping these standards.
• Consequently, owners of EPs may demand excessive royalties, resulting in the "patent holdup" dilemma.
• Although SSOs strive for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing, opacity and anti-competitive behaviours persist, as illustrated by substantial fines levied on companies like Qualcomm by multiple jurisdictions.

Judicial Response to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) Issues:

• Competition Law Enforcement Inertia: The Competition Commission of India (CCI) commenced an inquiry in 2013 upon a complaint by Micromax against Ericsson, alleging SEP licensing abuse.
  • However, Ericsson contested the CCI's jurisdiction, resulting in protracted legal wrangling.
  • Despite a favourable ruling for the CCI in 2016, Ericsson's appeals prolonged the case until a final judgment in 2023.
  • India, due to this prolonged litigation, remains the sole major economy yet to examine potential anti-competitive SEP licensing practices.
• Patent Infringement Cases and Judicial Engagement: While competition law matters linger, the Delhi High Court actively hears lawsuits by SEP owners against cellular phone manufacturers accused of patent infringement.
  • These lawsuits entail intricate trials to ascertain patent validity, infringement, and damages.
  • Rather than pausing proceedings pending competition law resolution, the court issues interim measures favouring SEP owners.
  • Such measures often mandate manufacturers, many of them Indian, to deposit substantial sums with the court for ongoing production during trials.
• Unprecedented "Deposit" Orders: Issuing "deposit" orders, compelling manufacturers to deposit significant funds before trial, is unprecedented in commercial law.
  • These orders, lasting throughout lengthy trials, impose heavy financial burdens on defendants, depriving them of vital working capital.
  • While lacking legal foundation and fairness, the Delhi High Court justifies them using its "inherent powers to ensure justice."
  • This judicial activism, while aimed at expediting legal proceedings, raises concerns about procedural fairness and equitable treatment of litigants.

Impact of Judicial Interventions and Legal Battles on India's Manufacturing Goals:

• Undermining Investor Confidence and Market Stability: Extended legal battles and judicial interventions sow uncertainty, denting investor trust in India's manufacturing sector.
  • Foreign investors may perceive the unpredictable legal environment as a barrier to entering or expanding operations in the nation.
  • Uncertainty regarding SEP licensing practices and potential adverse court rulings disrupts market stability, impeding long-term investment planning for both domestic and international enterprises.
• Stifling Growth and Innovation: SEP-related disputes divert attention and resources away from fostering innovation and technological progress in the telecom manufacturing domain.
  • Rather than directing efforts towards research and development (R&D) or embracing new technologies, companies become entangled in legal disputes, hindering productive pursuits.
  • This diversion of resources curtails innovation, obstructs product development, and undermines India's global competitiveness.
• Impact on Employment and Economy: The manufacturing sector is a vital source of employment and economic advancement, especially in emerging economies like India.
  • However, uncertainties surrounding SEP-related litigation pose a threat to job stability and employment opportunities, particularly in the telecom manufacturing sector.
  • Protracted legal proceedings and financial burdens may compel companies to downsize operations, leading to workforce reductions and inhibiting future investments.
• Policy Inconsistencies: Contradictions arise between judicial rulings favouring SEP owners and government initiatives to incentivize domestic manufacturing.
  • While the government aims to attract investment and bolster indigenous production, SEP-related disputes undermine these objectives.
  • The disconnect between supporting manufacturers and overlooking financial burdens imposed by SEP owners questions the coherence of policies promoting industrial growth.
• Long-term Industrial Landscape Implications: Unresolved tensions surrounding SEP licensing practices and judicial handling of disputes cast shadows over India's industrial future.
  • Failure to address these issues may deter investors, jeopardize job creation, and impede India's transition to a knowledge-based economy.
  • With regulatory intervention to streamline legal processes and ensure fairness, India can catch up to global peers in manufacturing prowess.

Way Forward:

• The European Parliament's proactive stance on regulating SEPs offers valuable lessons for global intervention in this arena.
• Given India's constrained influence in standard-setting and obligations to uphold patents of foreign tech firms, it presents a strong rationale for similar regulatory action.
• Enhancing regulatory frameworks to foster transparency, equity, and non-discriminatory practices in SEP licensing is essential to protect India's economic welfare and foster indigenous manufacturing.

Conclusion

The Indian government must prioritize resolving regulatory uncertainties regarding SEPs to protect domestic manufacturers' interests and drive industrial advancement. Regulatory actions should strive for a harmonious balance between technology firms' interests and overarching goals of economic progress, innovation, and consumer protection. Through decisive intervention, India can assert its autonomy, cultivate fair competition, and cultivate an environment conducive to investment and innovation.

Why is it in the News?

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC), in the judgment of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (DMRC) vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd (DAMEPL), set aside the arbitral award by exercising its curative jurisdiction.

Context:

• The Supreme Court of India holds a multifaceted role, serving as the apex court of appeal, a federal court, and an advisory body.
• One of its significant powers is the Curative Jurisdiction, established in 2002, which empowers the Court to rectify its judgments even after they have become final.
• However, the utilization of this jurisdiction has triggered discussions concerning its implications for judicial stability and the Supreme Court's role in shaping legal precedents.

What is the DMRC vs DAMEPL Case?

• The case dates back to 2008 when the DMRC entered into a PPP with the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), a consortium led by Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, for the Delhi Airport Metro Express project.
  • However, disputes arose between the two parties, leading to the termination of the agreement by DAMEPL in 2013.
• In 2017, an arbitration tribunal ruled in favor of DAMEPL and ordered DMRC to pay nearly Rs 8,000 crore.
  • DMRC challenged this ruling in the Delhi High Court, which overturned the arbitral award in 2019.
  • DAMEPL then appealed to the Supreme Court, which in September 2021 reversed the High Court's decision and upheld the arbitral award.
• However, in a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has now ruled in favor of DMRC, stating that there was a "fundamental error" in its previous judgment.

Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision:

• Firstly, it underscores the importance of curative petitions in correcting grave injustices in legal judgments.
  • Curative petitions are sparingly used and are only permitted on narrow, procedural grounds.
  • The Supreme Court's decision to grant relief to DMRC highlights the court's commitment to rendering justice in its true sense.
• Secondly, the decision has implications for PPPs in infrastructure projects.
  • PPPs play a crucial role in infrastructure development, but disputes between public and private entities can arise, leading to legal battles.
  • The Supreme Court's decision provides clarity on the legal framework governing PPPs and sets a precedent for future disputes in similar projects.
• Lastly, the decision has implications for investor confidence.
  • The Supreme Court's exercise of curative jurisdiction in this case, almost two and a half years after its final verdict, demonstrates the court's willingness to correct errors and ensure justice.
  • This is likely to boost investor confidence in India's legal system and encourage investment in infrastructure projects.

Difference Between a Curative Petition and Curative Jurisdiction:

Curative Petition:

• A curative petition is a specific legal remedy available within the framework of curative jurisdiction.
• It is a petition filed by a party to the case that has exhausted all other legal remedies and seeks the correction of a judgment that may have resulted from a violation of principles of natural justice or a gross miscarriage of justice.
• The grounds for filing a curative petition typically include the discovery of new evidence or legal errors that were not apparent earlier.
• Curative petitions are relatively rare and are considered as a last resort to correct errors in judgment.

Curative Jurisdiction:

• Curative jurisdiction refers to the broader authority of the Supreme Court to review and rectify its judgments to prevent gross miscarriages of justice.
• It is a power vested in the Supreme Court to ensure that fundamental principles of justice and fairness are upheld, even after a judgment has become final.
• Curative jurisdiction allows the Supreme Court to revisit its decisions if it perceives a need to prevent manifest injustice or correct egregious errors that may have escaped earlier notice.
• While curative petitions are one mechanism through which curative jurisdiction is exercised, the Supreme Court may also suo motu invoke curative jurisdiction in exceptional cases without a formal petition being filed.

Impact and Implications of Curative Jurisdiction:

• Impact on Arbitral Awards' Integrity: A central apprehension surrounding curative jurisdiction is its potential to affect the integrity of arbitral awards.
  • Arbitration relies on the conclusiveness and enforceability of awards for its efficacy.
  • When the Court intervenes in arbitral decisions, particularly amid concerns of judicial overreach, it risks undermining arbitration's core principles, such as party autonomy and swift dispute resolution.
• Balancing Judicial Consistency and Flexibility: The dichotomy between judicial consistency and flexibility emerges concerning curative jurisdiction.
  • While consistent legal interpretation fosters stability and predictability, it may stifle innovation. Conversely, excessive flexibility can breed uncertainty, eroding public trust in the judiciary.
• Examining the Scope of Judicial Review: Curative jurisdiction prompts queries about the extent of judicial review and its boundaries.
  • While the Court's role as the ultimate legal interpreter is clear, intervening in its judgments without impinging on legislative or executive domains requires meticulous consideration.
• Implications for Legal Precedents: The significance of Supreme Court judgments in maintaining legal coherence is undeniable.
  • However, curative jurisdiction may disrupt established precedents, casting doubt on the binding nature of judicial decisions.
  • The Court must exercise judiciousness to rectify errors without compromising the legal framework's integrity.
• Public Perception and Judicial Trust: The Court's credibility hinges on its impartiality and integrity in dispensing justice.
  • Excessive or arbitrary curative interventions may undermine public confidence in the judiciary, diminishing its authority as a legal arbiter.
  • The Court must exercise curative powers prudently to maintain public trust in the judiciary.

Critical Analysis of Judicial Instability:

• Challenging Legal Certainty: Legal certainty, a cornerstone of the rule of law, demands consistency and predictability in legal outcomes.
  • The use of curative jurisdiction, particularly in overturning final judgments, jeopardizes this certainty by casting doubt on the conclusiveness and enforceability of judicial decisions.
  • Such uncertainty undermines parties' confidence in the stability of the legal framework, fostering confusion and mistrust in the judicial process.
• Diminishing Judicial Authority: Judicial stability is intrinsic to the authority and credibility of the judiciary.
  • When the Supreme Court reverses its own judgments through curative measures, it risks appearing indecisive and inconsistent, eroding its status as the ultimate arbiter of the law.
  • This erosion of authority undermines public trust in the judiciary, fostering skepticism about the fairness and impartiality of judicial proceedings.
• Disrupting Legal Precedent: The stability of legal precedent is vital for maintaining coherence and consistency in the legal system.
  • However, the exercise of curative jurisdiction introduces the potential for disrupting established precedents and fostering inconsistency in judicial rulings.
  • This undermines the reliability of legal principles, creating confusion among legal practitioners, litigants, and lower courts.
  • Moreover, frequent reversals of judgments hinder the development of clear and consistent legal doctrines, impeding the evolution of the law.
• Risk of Judicial Overreach: Judicial stability acts as a safeguard against judicial overreach, ensuring that the judiciary respects its constitutional limits and upholds the separation of powers.
  • However, the use of curative jurisdiction raises concerns about the Court's propensity to exceed its authority and intrude into the domains of the legislative and executive branches.
  • By revisiting and overturning its own judgments, the Court risks overstepping its role and undermining the principles of checks and balances inherent in a democratic system.

Ways Forward for Balancing Judicial Oversight Stability:

• Fostering Judicial Accountability: Upholding judicial oversight, including the use of curative jurisdiction, is vital for ensuring judges are accountable and adhere to legal standards.
  • It offers a mechanism to rectify errors and address any judicial misconduct.
  • However, excessive oversight risks compromising judicial independence and impartiality, undercutting the judiciary's ability to fairly adjudicate disputes.
• Preserving Legal Stability: Legal stability is crucial for fostering predictability and confidence in the legal system.
  • By upholding established precedents and minimizing disruptions to settled legal principles, the judiciary promotes legal stability.
  • Nevertheless, the exercise of curative jurisdiction introduces uncertainty by allowing the Court to revisit and potentially reverse its judgments, challenging the stability of legal doctrine and the reliability of judicial decisions.
• Respecting the Separation of Powers: Striking a balance between judicial oversight and stability requires respecting the separation of powers and acknowledging the distinct roles of the judiciary, legislature, and executive.
  • While the judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting and applying the law, it must exercise restraint to avoid intruding into the domains of other branches of government.
  • The use of curative jurisdiction should be guided by principles of judicial deference and deference to legislative intent, particularly in matters where judicial intervention could undermine democratic processes or policy decisions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's Curative Jurisdiction is a potent mechanism for rectifying judicial mistakes, yet it presents hurdles to judicial stability and coherence. The DMRC vs DAMEPL case highlights the necessity for a balanced approach in reconciling judicial oversight with legal predictability. Ultimately, as the ultimate arbiter of the law, the Court must carefully wield its curative authority to uphold public trust in the legal system's integrity.