Challenging 26th amendment

Listen to article

The honourable Lords of the Supreme Court are seized with an issue of grave importance while upholding the spirit of the Constitution. The controversial 26th amendment is under the hammer and the earlier it is heard by the full court, the better. It is so because the impugned legislation has drastically altered the balance of powers among the organs of the state, and is clearly in contravention of the principle of separation of judiciary from the executive. Moreover, the superior judiciary is in need of instantly resolving the interpretation debate over the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court vs the writ of the Constitutional Bench, as it is mired in confusion since the incorporation of Article 191A in the legislation.

The good point is that, at least, a plethora of petitions pending to be heard against the 26th amendment have seen the light of the day. As the constitutional bench issued notices to the parties concerned, adjourning it to hear after three weeks, it ended the stalemate, per se. As arguments are for and against the convening of the full court, it is good that they all shall be heard on merit, and that too in public broadcast. But one can logically differ with the input of the Lords at the constitutional bench, who interpreted on Tuesday that the "existing eight-judge bench is a full court". Likewise, one can beg to submit that the constitutional bench which is itself an output of the debatable amendment cannot sit in judgment while deciding its legitimacy, or otherwise.

It would be judiciously-correct to conduct the hearing on the premise of full strength of the august court, as has been the convention vis-a-vis challenges to 18th Amendment, 21st Amendment and Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. The apex court, as the custodian of the Constitution, needs to assert itself with a judicial review. It has to ponder over details of the challenged law, as it was passed by a legislature which was 'incomplete', bills were bulldozed without being referred to standing committees, and the harmony of separation of powers was trampled.