NewKerala.com

Key Points

Former Supreme Court judge Ajay Rastogi provides nuanced insights into the delicate relationship between judiciary and legislature. He emphasizes that constitutional checks and balances allow both institutions to play their respective roles without conflict. Rastogi argues that while courts have the power of judicial review, Parliament can always clarify legislative intent through amendments. The interview underscores the importance of maintaining institutional integrity and serving public interest.

Key Points: Justice Rastogi Explains Judiciary-Parliament Constitutional Balance

  • Parliament can clarify legislative intent if court interpretation differs
  • Judicial review remains a core constitutional power
  • Speedy hearings crucial for public welfare cases
  • Laws must pass constitutional scrutiny
3 min read

Parliament can clarify legislative intent if court's interpretation doesn't align, says Justice Rastogi

Former Supreme Court judge discusses judicial review, legislative intent, and constitutional checks and balances in exclusive interview

"Judges work fearlessly and independently, with complete dedication to the institution - Justice Ajay Rastogi"

New Delhi, April 19

Former Supreme Court judge Ajay Rastogi on Saturday emphasised the need for expeditious hearings in cases concerning public interest, especially those impacting large segments of underprivileged citizens.

In an exclusive interview with IANS, Justice Rastogi shared his views on judicial restraint, the Waqf (Amendment) Act, and the perceived tensions between the judiciary and the legislature.

Here's the full interview:

IANS: In matters of public interest, especially laws aimed at benefiting the poor, do you believe the Supreme Court should ensure speedy hearings?

Ajay Rastogi: The power to grant a stay lies with the courts. However, if a stay is deemed necessary, it should be followed by an early hearing. Matters concerning public welfare must be heard and decided at the earliest.

IANS: The Supreme Court recently stayed certain provisions of the Waqf Act. Does this give an impression of judicial overreach?

Ajay Rastogi: I do not believe the Supreme Court is overreaching. The Court is fully conscious of its role. The matter is sub judice, and the next hearing is scheduled for May 5. All parties have the liberty to present their arguments, and the Court will decide accordingly.

IANS: In the Tamil Nadu case, some have alleged judicial overreach. What is your take?

Ajay Rastogi: The judgment is in the public domain and open to scrutiny. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Article 200 of the Constitution states that decisions must be made "as soon as possible." If interpretation is required, the Court is empowered to do so. All options remain open within the constitutional framework.

IANS: Do judges face external pressure, particularly in sensitive cases like those involving religious matters like Waqf?

Ajay Rastogi: Judges are also human beings, but once we take the oath, the question of pressure should not arise. Judges work fearlessly and independently, with complete dedication to the institution and in the interest of the public.

IANS: In some cases, we have seen that there is a clash between the judiciary and Parliament. And in some cases, we have seen that the Parliament has amended some judgments. What's your take?

Ajay Rastogi: Not at all. Parliament is within its rights to clarify legislation if it feels the Court’s interpretation doesn't reflect its intent. This is a part of the constitutional balance. No one should feel offended. Parliament has the competence to amend laws, and courts interpret them within constitutional limits.

IANS: Is the judiciary attempting to alter the basic structure of the Constitution?

Ajay Rastogi: Judicial review is a core power of the courts. Legislatures act with their wisdom, but all laws must pass the constitutional test. Courts may uphold or strike them down accordingly -- that is the judicial process.

IANS: The government said that they have passed the Waqf Bill after following all the necessary procedures. But, the message went to court that it had been passed within 2 hours. What would you say?

Ajay Rastogi: Legislation involves stakeholder consultation, committees, and debate. That is the strength of Parliament. However, once a law is passed, it must undergo judicial scrutiny to ensure it aligns with constitutional principles. The government must justify its legislative intent, but the final decision rests with the court.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya K.
Justice Rastogi makes some excellent points about the balance between judiciary and legislature. The system of checks and balances is what makes our democracy strong. 👏
R
Rahul S.
While I appreciate his perspective, I wonder if Parliament amending laws after judicial review could lead to a never-ending cycle? The article doesn't address how many times this can happen before it becomes problematic.
A
Anjali M.
So refreshing to hear a former judge speak so clearly about judicial independence! "Judges work fearlessly and independently" - this is exactly what we need to remember when controversial cases come up.
V
Vikram P.
The part about speedy hearings for public interest cases is crucial. Many important welfare schemes get stuck in legal limbo while people suffer. Hope the courts take this advice seriously!
S
Sunita R.
Interesting interview, but I wish there were more concrete examples of when Parliament has amended laws post-judicial review. The theoretical discussion is good, but practical cases would help understand better.
K
Karan D.
"All laws must pass the constitutional test" - this simple statement captures the essence of our democracy. Great to see such clarity from a legal expert! 🇮🇳

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50