Essay on “Judiciary: Role and Responsibility in Parliamentary Democracy” Complete Essay for Class 9, Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.

Judiciary: Role and Responsibility in Parliamentary Democracy

In a democratic state, parliament is the legislative wing, while the government is the executive , and judiciary is administrator of justice and interpreter of law in course of that administration.

In a parliamentary democracy , the government is formed by the single party of group of parties commanding majority on the floor of the popularly elected house. The house of parliament  where government is formed however, has double role- law making and seating and unseating of the government. The legislative bills are initiated by the government under established norms and put to legislative procedure for introducing private bills by any member of other house and for suggesting amendments to any provision section or clause of the proposed bill by members of the opposition and independents.

Undoubtedly, these provision are significant in so far as they put all the honorable members of the respective House at par with one another and do not make legislation a monopoly of the government of the treasury benches in respect thereof. But practically such bills could finally be adopted in the house only with the prior confidence of the government or the treasury benches. The amendments can be carried out for simple reason of favour of majority as an essential requisite for the same.

The judiciary is no concerned with the legislation but with the laws that are in existence and operational, related to the respective cases under its considerations.  Still, the rules and responsibilities are far more important and crucial to the essence of democracy- i.e. justice to the citizens. Because, through primarily not concerned with the legislative process or framing of law as it is the sovereign right of parliament yet judiciary has to examine the propriety and applicability in the respective cases and it is its responsibility to look into all the aspects and issues implied therein course of administration and deliverance of justice to the citizens.  

As we know, in parliamentary democracy the government is collectively responsible for all its deeds to the parliament which  itself is composed of the representatives of the  people of the country  or the primary electors. But under this system,  the individual representative is not responsible to his electors for his deeds or mandate in form of promises and assurances given to them at time of election in order to secure their votes. The representative once getting sited in the respective House after the formality of oath  taking on the floor, are lost in horizons of power-politics seeking a berth in the ministry, or otherwise become en  grand seigneur for their personal ends all through, lasing the term of the parliament.

This is, however, a defect of system inherent in the representative democracy that the primary elector is isolated from its representative and has no say in matters affecting their own or public interest related to legislation in the parliament. That’s how the aspirations of the people. Their urgent needs and grievances find no place in the scheming for governance.

The people in this system are, therefore, left to the administration and judiciary to look for all such things. Out of it, administration is responsible for implementation of government policies and programmes and maintenance  of  law and order. While judiciary has quite distinct role and responsibilities with its sphere that are vital to discipline the system and keep it going and ensure equitability before law of all the citizens and deliver justice to them. Supreme Court of India, apex court of the country, is at the top of India Judiciary and highest court of appeal. On reference from the President of India or the Government of India, the Chief Justice  of India gives his opinion on specific matters related to any particular act or any part thereof before it is assented by the head of the state. To court is empowered to declare any act or part thereof ultra virus of the constitution thus invalidating its operationality.

Supreme Court of the country is guardian of the fundamental rights of the citizens that are enshrined in India Constitution. If any citizen moves a writ in the apex court against encroachment by the government upon any of its fundamental rights in any manner , the court will urgently consider it and divert the government to refrain forthwith  from doing so. While going through a case of excesses on part of the government officer, including police officers, secure strictures are passed against them. In deserving cases, directions are issued to compensate the victim also.

Supreme Court and High Courts of late have been very actively considering public interest matters brought to them under public interest litigation. In interest of public health, sanitation and environmental control our judiciary is very prompt so that government’s slackness or other obstructions do not stall the process of management or control of these problems.        

Furthermore, it is very important to note that the successive weaker government in a democratic country with a parliamentary system, as evidently is the case of this country, can never cope with the socio- economic degeneration and deterioration of law and order and rampant corruption consequent there upon. Prevalence of such a situation for long is fraught with dangers of weakling the very foundation of the state on one end., and erosion of public interest on the other.

With the growth of nexus between criminals and law enforcing agencies and between criminals and politicians , the judiciary within its purview is only the straw in hand for rescue. It spring up to act very swiftly and assumes its role and responsibilities towards the state and the people. Whenever the  policies being subservient to vested interest, and denies justice to the aggrieved citizens, there is spurt in complaint cases in law courts and their grievances are removed by delivering justice to them and afford them the due relief and protect their interests. Some say this is ‘judicial adventurism’ and advise the judiciary to guard against it. However, it is the social philosophy of judiciary, and so far at is in the interest of general public, it is welcome.