Revision summary
Maneka Gandhi and PIL made the Supreme Court a place where social and environmental policy is often first written as rights. Vishaka guidelines, pollution and food orders, and federal cases such as Bommai are policy evolution by judgment. The Court fills vacuums left by the executive and legislature; that is the empirical basis of the statement. Electoral democracy still assigns general policy to removable legislatures. Agreement is therefore yes for rights-based gap-filling, and no for the Court as a general policy government.
Model answer
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has become, in important areas, a forum where public policy is shaped through rights litigation, continuing mandamus, and guidelines that operate until Parliament acts. Agreement with the statement should be partial: the Court has evolved policy in gaps, and it is not the authorised legislature.
Body
Why the statement is largely true
- After Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Article 21 became a due-process style clause, which opened health, livelihood, environment, and privacy as judicial policy fields.
- Public interest litigation under Justices P. N. Bhagwati and V. R. Krishna Iyer lowered standing and let the Court hear collective injuries.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) laid down workplace sexual-harassment guidelines as law until the 2013 statute, which is policy evolution in a vacuum.
- Environment benches, the right-to-food litigation in PUCL, vehicle and pollution orders, and forest-governance orders have set detailed regimes that look like departmental policy.
- Kesavananda and S. R. Bommai evolved the policy of constitutional identity and of federal emergency, which bind later governments.
- Foucault’s governmentality is a warning: courts that manage rations, emissions, and asylums become part of the administrative state, not only its checker.
Why the statement must be qualified
- Policy evolution in a democracy belongs first to legislatures that Dahl’s polyarchy can remove. Judges are not removable by the same electoral test.
- The Court often acts because the executive left a gap; that is residual policy, not a claim that the Court should write the annual budget.
- Separation of powers, the political-question habit, and later benches that have stepped back on some economic matters show self-check.
- Austin’s social-revolution Constitution invited judicial partnership with Parts III and IV; it did not repeal Article 245.
- Rawls’s basic structure is a set of liberties and fair procedures, not a licence for the judiciary to choose every distributive scheme.
Justified answer
- Yes, over the years the Supreme Court has become a forum for policy evolution in rights, environment, gender workplace rules, and constitutional federal limits.
- No, it has not lawfully become the only or the best forum for ordinary economic and administrative policy.
- The justified position is a rights-protecting, gap-filling court inside a parliamentary federation, not a third government of general policy.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD SC[Supreme Court] --> R[Article 21 expansion] SC --> PIL[PIL and continuing mandamus] SC --> G[Guidelines Vishaka] P[Parliament] --> L[Statutes and budgets] SC --> Q[Not a substitute parliament]
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has become a forum for policy evolution where rights and institutional vacuums required rules, as in Maneka, Vishaka, environment, and food litigation. Justification stops at general legislation and budgets, which remain Parliament’s. The Court is a constitutional policy forum, not a substitute parliament.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Is policy by guidelines undemocratic?
It is under-democratic if it lasts without a statute. Vishaka itself asked Parliament to act. The 2013 Act is the proper completion.
-
Can the Court run ministries?
It can order legality and rights-consistent administration. Day-to-day allocation of scarce funds remains the executive’s, reviewable for rights, not replaceable as a general planner.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q7(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Does the actual working of Indian federalism conform to the centralizing tendencies in Indian polity? Give reasons for your answer -
2021 · Q6(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
The role of the President of India becomes more significant during a minority government and a coalition government. Explain -
2021 · Q8(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Examine the evolution of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India as a constitutional court
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science.
Political Theory
The normative approach asks what political life ought to be and argues about justice, liberty, and obligation. Plato, Aristotle, the contract theorists, Mill, and Rawls are central practitioners. Easton and Dahl supply empirical maps of systems and decisions that cannot replace the question of right. Communitarian critics warn that abstract persons can hide real communities. Indian Parts III and IV show that a constitution is itself a public set of ought-statements.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights.
Political Theory
Multicultural theory treats culture as a condition of using liberty, not as a private hobby. Kymlicka, Taylor, Parekh, and Walzer argue for recognition and, in some cases, group rights. Indian Articles 25 to 30 and linguistic states are the constitutional form of that argument. Ambedkar’s Article 17 and sex-equality limits block a group veto over civil liberty. The perspective fails if it either ignores minorities or traps persons inside the group.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes).
Political Theory
Hobbes’s state of nature is a state of war: a condition of known readiness to fight where there is no common power. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the three causes of quarrel. Natural equality of vulnerability makes pre-emptive violence rational. The sovereign ends the war by monopolising judgment and force. Locke, Mill, and constitutional democracy keep a common power and then limit it, which Hobbes refused as a right against the sovereign.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.