Independence of judiciary can't be invoked to strike down law passed as policy matter, Centre tells SC

The Centre has told the Supreme Court that independence of the judiciary can not be invoked to test the validity of a law passed by the Parliament as a matter of policy.

It also maintained that striking down a law related to a matter of policy was in fact violation of the principle of separation of power.

Defending the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the Union government said, "it is distressed that laws and statutory rules made by Parliament and the Executive in areas of pure policy are being held to be void by invoking independence of the judiciary when such laws and rules do not violate fundamental rights or any provision of the Constitution and is wholly within competency".

"Government equally believes that the court striking down these pure matters of policy violates the separation of powers by the judicial wing of the state," it said.

The government's assertion came in a response to a batch of petitions, including by Congress MP Jairam Ramesh, against the validity of the 2021 Act.

The petitioners claimed the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, abrogated the principle of judicial independence in a deliberate attempt to override the previous judgments of the top court.

They asked the court to declare the Act, which was passed by both the Houses of Parliament and had received the Presidential assent on August 13, as unconstitutional and ultra vires of Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution.

"Basic structure in the Constitution can only be used to test the validity of a constitutional amendment but has no relevance when it comes to validity of a statute," the Centre said. The government also pointed out that it has been held in a series of cases, including by two Constitutional Bench decisions and by a seven-judge bench of this court about the same.

It also contended that the principle of separation of powers itself would stand violated if the judiciary interfered with issues of policy and substituted it by what it believed would be a better policy.

Check out DH's latest videos