Judicial Review: Judicial Review is the power of the judicial organ of the government to review the decisions of the

legislature or the executive on grounds of their constitutional validity. Originating in the US political system, this has also become a feature of Indian judicial practice over the years, even though its not a constitutionally prescribed role of the Indian judiciary. In USA, judiciary can review policies formulated by the legislature under the principle of due process of law which at times invokes the principles of natural justice, human rights, etc even beyond the constitutional legality. Whereas in India, the principle of procedure established by law makes the constitutional legality as sacrosanct, this cannot be overruled by any organ of the government. Thus, the question of judicial review in India has also revolved around the necessity to uphold the spirit of the constitution as best as it can be done. In India, judiciary and legislature, that is, the Parliament have faced a tussle over the limits and prospects of the amendment power of the latter, as given in the Constitution under Article 368. Amendments to the Constitution also carry with them the possibility of changing the constitution in such a way that the original intention of the Constitution makers may be ignored and which would transform its very spirit. This is the argument put forward in favor of judicial review, whereas on the other hand, the legislature has seen this as a breach of their power to amend under article 368. Thus, the basic question then is whether the Parliament has unlimited amending power or not? Judicial review has historically shaped answer to the above mentioned question in many interpretations of itself. The first period of judicial review, from 1951-67 may be seen as the period within which judiciary agreed to the vast amending powers of the Parliament. This is reflected in Sankari Prasad case, which challenged the first amendment to the Constitution and asserted the rights of aggrieved landowners whose lands were taken away by the state, after the passage of Zamindari Abolition Act in 1950s. The 1st amendment act of 1951 had placed articles 31 A and 31 B pertaining to fundamental right to property under the 9th schedule, which is outside of the purview of judiciary. The case which for the first time challenged the amending power of the Parliament was Golaknath case of 1967, which overruled Sankari Prasad judgment. It said that Article 368 does not permit the Parliament to amend fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. In response, the Parliament introduced more amendments safeguarding its power, like the 25th , 26th and 29th amendments, challenging Judiciarys power over its powers. Kesvananda Bharti case of 1973 went a step ahead of the Golaknath case in reasserting judiciarys power of review and upholding the Constitution. The judiciary in this case, laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine. The basic structure could be defined as those essential features of the Constitution which are unamendable. It became a controversial doctrine since the interpretation of what comes under the basic structure differed from judge to judge. Those who supported the doctrine included Fali Nariman, Soli Sorabjee , Justice Ahmadi. Pran Chopra, Madhava Menon etc. were against the doctrine. It was interpreted variously as consisting in secularism, separation of powers, fundamental rights, directive principles, federalism, etc.

In 1975 came up the Indira Gandhi Election case, which judged her election to Parliament as corrupt and was nullified by the Allahabad High Court. Her appeal in the Supreme Court was preceded by an amendment in electoral law itself which took away the basis of High Court decision. 42nd amendment in 1976 also kept judicial review at bay by amending article 368 itself. The 9th schedule was declared as immune from judicial review. Over time, we have also seen the application of basic structure doctrine not just in cases of amendment but even in ordinary legislation, for instance the legislation dealing with Ayodhya (Acquisition of Certain Areas) Act, 1993. In Bommai case of 1993, governors of four BJP ruled states reported a deviation from secularism in their states in the wake of Babri Masjid Demolition in 1992. The state governments of HP, MP and Rajasthan were dismissed on this ground and Presidents Rule imposed on them. The Supreme Court intervened in this case on the petition filed by the Chief Ministers against this executive order and interpreted judicial review as such as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The case also gave a judicial interpretation of secularism and the limits of the power of Presidents Rule. Basic Structure itself was posed beyond the amending power of the Parliament. Thus, the historical trajectory of judicial review has shown the tussle between judiciary and legislative wings of the government. At the same time, it raises question on the scope of amending power vis--vis the basic structure of the Constitution.

Judicial Activism: Over the years judiciary, being an upholder and supreme custodian of the Constitution has variously interpreted the content of the Constitution ranging from more creative and wide interpretation of right to life (even including in its ambit right to sleep, right to livelihood, etc.) to an invocation of natural principles of justice over the stringent word of law. Thus, through this the judiciary seems to have moved away from its traditional jurisdiction in India to cover areas hitherto outside of its scope, assuming an active role in the process. This may be seen in terms of judicial review. This activism is reflected in judiciarys intervention into arenas reserved for legislature or executive, when the judges assume a moral position- the conscience keepers of the nation. At the same time, through this activism, judiciary is also becoming more accessible and significant democratic institution. Judicial activism is reflected in following ways: a. New interpretations of old laws to create new ones b. Dealing with concerns of human rights and environment which go beyond national laws. c. Assumption of power by judiciary beyond constitution and the laws established by it, that is , a move away from the procedure established by law to invoke universal principles of justice. d. Enhancing public interest through judicial decisions e. Keeping public bodies accountable to people 2

Judicial Activism has been reflected most majorly through Public Interest Litigation (PIL). PIL has been based on Social Action Suits in USA, which saw judiciary taking up the position in favour of marginalized sections of society, asserting against racial segregation in education, housing, etc. Public Interest Litigation is filed in the interest of larger public interest and has given judges the opportunity to deal with cases of significance, providing imaginative interpretations. It has become a possibility as a result of judicial activism in India, with a lot of procedural relaxations by the courts in terms of filing a petition and its nature. One such relaxation is the broadening of idea of locus standii, by permitting any public spirited person to file a petition in the court on behalf of general public interest. Similarly, even postcards are considered as petitions if the judge concerned feels the matter to be important. This epistolary jurisdiction was introduced by Justice Bhagwati in 1990s. The courts have also liberalized the use of evidence in certain cases and anyone who is interested in a particular PIL may help the court in matters of producing evidence to support it. This person is termed as amicus curiae or friend of the court. PIL in India has revolutionized the judicial system, and has augmented judicial activism in India. Many other judges have found PIL to be unnecessary and this has resulted in strong judicial backlash. An instance of this could be the anti-people judgment given by Justice Kirpal in Narmada dam case. But many other cases reflect the progressive role played by the judiciary in taking pro-people decisions, like the CNG case, Taj Mahal pollution case, etc. PIL has proved to be a democratic device for people who had no or less access to the machinery of justice, and it has played a vital role in empowering the weaker sections of society. AT the same time, it has also led to concerns about accountability of judiciary and limits to judicial activism since it seems to disturb the balance between three organs of the government-judiciary, legislature and executive. Many times there have been instances of abuse of PIL by certain NGOs and PIL activists who work for malicious purposes in the garb of public interest. However, it may be said that despite all this, PIL has proved to be a boon making judiciary a more accessible and democratic body.

BUDGETING 1. Zero Based Budgeting: each budget allocates resources for a particular programme on the basis of its reviewed performance. However if a given programme is not justifiable, it is completely rejected and a zero-sum allocation is made, terminating the programme. This zero-based budgeting rejects incremental budgetary allocation to a programme. In India, resource crunch led to the adoption of this kind of budgeting since the seventh plan period, in 1986. It has entailed more calculated expenditure and sharpening of objectives, cost benefit analysis and a prioritization of objectives. It also leads to allocation of resources to high priority sectors, and termination of not so beneficial ones. Every 3

expenditure has to be justified afresh, rather than treating ongoing programs as immutable. 2. Performance Budgeting: The Administrative Reforms Commission defines it as a technique for presenting government expenditure in terms of functions, programs, activities and projects rather than in terms of line items which emphasizes staff, furniture, equipments, etc. Performance budgeting sets targets and parameters in advance on the basis of which governments performance may be judged. It is different from a traditional line-item budget which allocated funds on basis of supplies to be made of goods and services. This concept of performance based budgeting was first introduced in USA by Hoover Commission in 1949 and was adopted in India in 1965 ARC report. 3. Gender Budgeting: Allocation of funds in a budget on the basis of gender requirements is gender budgeting. Its main purpose is to mitigate socio-economic disparities between men and women and create economic infrastructure and opportunities for women. This began in India since 2006-07 when around 29 crore was dedicated to womens development projects.

Important Topics: Unit I 1. 2. 3. 4. Unit II 1. Role of Experts in Policy making- RBI, CACP, Planning Commission and Finance Commission 2. Budgetary Regime- Zero Based Budgeting, Performance Budgeting, Gender Budgeting 3. Regulatory Institutions- SEBI, TRAI, CCI 4. Lobbying Institutions- Trade Unions, Farmers Associations Unit III 1. Liberalization (New Economic Policy) 2. E-Governance 3. Planning in India Unit IV 1. New Social Movements 2. Social Movements- women, Dalits, environmental 3. Role of NGOs in India Parliament( Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, role, decline of Parliament) Federalism (including panchayati raj and decentralization) Regional parties and coalition Judicial Review and Judicial Activism