The dimensions of judicial justice and constitutional morality are the same. Without judicial justice, constitutional morality is insufficient for the advancement of Indian society; both indirectly contribute to the expansion of social fairness
The Supreme Court of India (Hindi: भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय) is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal of India established under Constitution of India, as per which Supreme Court is the highest constitutional court and acts as the guardian of Constitution. India follow the integrated and yet independent judiciary.
Since independence, judiciary has been playing a very active role in dispensing the justice since A K Gopalan vs State of Madras case(1950) followed by Shankari Prasad case, etc. However, judiciary remained submissive till 1960s but its assertiveness started in 1973 when Allahabad High Court rejected the candidature of Indira Gandhi and introduction of PIL by Justice P N Bhagwati further expanded its scope. Subodh Markandeya well known Senior Advocate of Supreme court of India is famous Judicial activist ,who is famous for his notable Public Interest Litigation cases.
CAB Coup
The Opposition is caught napping as the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 gets parliamentary approval. The protests against its discriminatory clauses expose its flaws and minority fears. The Supreme Court remains the only hope to salvage India’s secular credentials
Study of Dandaniti in the Dharmasastra shows us the value of thinking about law and society in close connection to both dharma and custom of the people. Dandaniti enables human advancement as much as it constrains human follies.
In the Dharmasastra legal processes, institutions and concepts were not considered exclusive province of state and legislature, and evolved in close touch with the most ordinary of human contexts. People were the ultimate authority in this process and knowledge was gathered from the practices of the people.
Rules regarding the feelings and activities of the world, movable as well as immovable, were not formulated exclusively and conclusively by the Dharmasastra. Whatever Sastras, laws, and social activities were connected with the human life were seen as contextual and creative.
Judicial activism in India ( Brief Notes )sandhyakrish2
Judicial activism is the judicial philosophy that the courts can and should go beyond the words of the constitution or a statute to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.
The Supreme Court of India (Hindi: भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय) is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal of India established under Constitution of India, as per which Supreme Court is the highest constitutional court and acts as the guardian of Constitution. India follow the integrated and yet independent judiciary.
Since independence, judiciary has been playing a very active role in dispensing the justice since A K Gopalan vs State of Madras case(1950) followed by Shankari Prasad case, etc. However, judiciary remained submissive till 1960s but its assertiveness started in 1973 when Allahabad High Court rejected the candidature of Indira Gandhi and introduction of PIL by Justice P N Bhagwati further expanded its scope. Subodh Markandeya well known Senior Advocate of Supreme court of India is famous Judicial activist ,who is famous for his notable Public Interest Litigation cases.
CAB Coup
The Opposition is caught napping as the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 gets parliamentary approval. The protests against its discriminatory clauses expose its flaws and minority fears. The Supreme Court remains the only hope to salvage India’s secular credentials
Study of Dandaniti in the Dharmasastra shows us the value of thinking about law and society in close connection to both dharma and custom of the people. Dandaniti enables human advancement as much as it constrains human follies.
In the Dharmasastra legal processes, institutions and concepts were not considered exclusive province of state and legislature, and evolved in close touch with the most ordinary of human contexts. People were the ultimate authority in this process and knowledge was gathered from the practices of the people.
Rules regarding the feelings and activities of the world, movable as well as immovable, were not formulated exclusively and conclusively by the Dharmasastra. Whatever Sastras, laws, and social activities were connected with the human life were seen as contextual and creative.
Judicial activism in India ( Brief Notes )sandhyakrish2
Judicial activism is the judicial philosophy that the courts can and should go beyond the words of the constitution or a statute to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.
Overdue Reform
An All-India Judicial Service will enhance productivity, and quality of services at the district level would improve dramatically, says Prof Madhava Menon
Definition of Law:
Law is defined as Rules of Human action. Blackstone defines law as “ It is a rule of action whether it be animate or inanimate or of nations. Thus law of motion are as much law of nature or of nations. Other jurists however restrict the meaning and scope of law only to norms necessary for regulation of human conduct. Salmond defines law as the “body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice. Austin defines Law is the aggregate of rules set men as politically superior or sovereign to men as politically subject. Duguit defines Law as essentially and exclusively as social fact. Roscoe Pound defines law as a social institution to satisfy social wants. Another great sociological jurist is Ehrlich. He includes in his definition all the norms which govern social life within a given society.
Law is defined as Rules of Human action. Blackstone defines law as “ It is a rule of action whether it be animate or inanimate or of nations. Thus law of motion are as much law of nature or of nations. Other jurists however restrict the meaning and scope of law only to norms necessary for regulation of human conduct. Salmond defines law as the “body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice. Austin defines Law is the aggregate of rules set men as politically superior or sovereign to men as politically subject. Duguit defines Law as essentially and exclusively as social fact. Roscoe Pound defines law as a social institution to satisfy social wants. Another great sociological jurist is Ehrlich. He includes in his definition all the norms which govern social life within a given society.
Judicial Review with a reference of Judicial Activism. Sanjana Bharadwaj
This PPT will give you a breif idea on what is Judicial Review, how did it origionate in India with a reference of Judicial Activism and PIL along with examples and case laws.
The Principle of Rule of Law and Islamic Jurisprudence Qasdina Hj Bakar
This paper discusses about the basic truth or theory of ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Islamic Jurisprudence’. And how both of the terminologies are different from each other. As discussions among theorists are riven by disagreements over what it means, its elements or requirements, its benefits or limitations, whether it is a universal good, and other complex questions.
The rule of law entails government accountability, equal access to justice and the political process, efficient judicial and political systems, clear laws, generally stable laws, and the protection of fundamental human rights. By the end of the paper, it explores whether Islamic law conforms to these principles in theory and in practice. Three conclusions are reached. First, various early Islamic institutions were meant, in some respect, to serve one or more of these principles. Second, the institutions in question lost effectiveness over time. Finally, the relevant Islamic institutions are now generally out of date.
Overdue Reform
An All-India Judicial Service will enhance productivity, and quality of services at the district level would improve dramatically, says Prof Madhava Menon
Definition of Law:
Law is defined as Rules of Human action. Blackstone defines law as “ It is a rule of action whether it be animate or inanimate or of nations. Thus law of motion are as much law of nature or of nations. Other jurists however restrict the meaning and scope of law only to norms necessary for regulation of human conduct. Salmond defines law as the “body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice. Austin defines Law is the aggregate of rules set men as politically superior or sovereign to men as politically subject. Duguit defines Law as essentially and exclusively as social fact. Roscoe Pound defines law as a social institution to satisfy social wants. Another great sociological jurist is Ehrlich. He includes in his definition all the norms which govern social life within a given society.
Law is defined as Rules of Human action. Blackstone defines law as “ It is a rule of action whether it be animate or inanimate or of nations. Thus law of motion are as much law of nature or of nations. Other jurists however restrict the meaning and scope of law only to norms necessary for regulation of human conduct. Salmond defines law as the “body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice. Austin defines Law is the aggregate of rules set men as politically superior or sovereign to men as politically subject. Duguit defines Law as essentially and exclusively as social fact. Roscoe Pound defines law as a social institution to satisfy social wants. Another great sociological jurist is Ehrlich. He includes in his definition all the norms which govern social life within a given society.
Judicial Review with a reference of Judicial Activism. Sanjana Bharadwaj
This PPT will give you a breif idea on what is Judicial Review, how did it origionate in India with a reference of Judicial Activism and PIL along with examples and case laws.
The Principle of Rule of Law and Islamic Jurisprudence Qasdina Hj Bakar
This paper discusses about the basic truth or theory of ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Islamic Jurisprudence’. And how both of the terminologies are different from each other. As discussions among theorists are riven by disagreements over what it means, its elements or requirements, its benefits or limitations, whether it is a universal good, and other complex questions.
The rule of law entails government accountability, equal access to justice and the political process, efficient judicial and political systems, clear laws, generally stable laws, and the protection of fundamental human rights. By the end of the paper, it explores whether Islamic law conforms to these principles in theory and in practice. Three conclusions are reached. First, various early Islamic institutions were meant, in some respect, to serve one or more of these principles. Second, the institutions in question lost effectiveness over time. Finally, the relevant Islamic institutions are now generally out of date.
Explore the significant distinctions between Hindu and Muslim Laws of Succession in India, including inheritance principles, succession rules, and the impact on property rights. Understand how these legal systems shape property distribution among Hindus and Muslims.
A patent is the protector of the creations of the mind which are of scientific nature. It is an exclusive right given to the inventor by the Government for an invention. This right allows an inventor to exclude others to make, sell, use, or distribute an invention. The primary motive behind the introduction of patent law is to encourage inventors to add more value to their field. The enforcement of a patent ensures the protection of the inventor’s intellectual property rights. Patents prevent theft, ensure exclusivity, help in commercialization, and add money value to the invention.
Constitutional validity of Death Penalty or Capital punishment in India.pdfFree Law - by De Jure
In the Supreme Court of India, the Constitutional validity of the death penalty was challenged many times in different ways. Among different nations in the world, India is one of the nations that have neither totally abolished the death penalty nor passed legislation that may highlight the validity or legality of death penalty or capital punishment. In India, death penalty is awarded on the grounds of rarest of rare doctrine. In 1973, the death penalty was firstly challenged in India in the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The judgment and order came before the re-enactment of the CrPC in 1973 whereby the death sentence was determined as an exceptional sentence. In this case, the validity of capital punishment was addressed on the basis that it infringed Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court held that “the choice of death sentence is done by the procedure established by law.” Moreover, during the hearing of the case, it was determined that the top Court decides between a life sentence and a death sentence based on different facts, type of crime, idea of the wrongdoing and circumstances presented before the Court during trial. While delivering the order and judgment on hideous crimes, there is an evolution in the top Court’s views that raises various questions in association with existing judgments.
A document or a piece of paper that guarantees payment of a certain amount of money to a specified person (payee) either immediately upon demand or at a predetermined period is known as a negotiable instrument. It is a document made up of a contract that ensures unconditional payment of money that can be paid now or later. In other words, any document that grants ownership over a quantum of money as well as can be transferred by delivery is addressed as a negotiable instrument. To govern the use of negotiable instruments in India, the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881 was defined. On March 1, 1881, the Act of 1881, came into force and extends to the whole of India. It is “An Act to define and amend the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques.” The Negotiable Instrument Act consists of a total of 147 Sections that are spread over 17 chapters. As per the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881, no phrase appropriately defines ‘negotiable instrument’ whereas Section 13 of the Act states that “A negotiable instrument means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer.”
Property Rights of Daughters under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.pdfFree Law - by De Jure
The inheritance of property to the legal heirs is performed according to testament or will but if a person dies intestate then the transfer of property to the beneficiaries is performed as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This article provides a brief discussion of the Hindu Succession Act, of 1956, and its 2005 Amendment highlighting various changes that provide uniform order of succession with respect to the property rights of Hindu daughters.
Humans and animals are living together prosperously for a long time period. As quoted by Kamaran Ihsan Salih, “Lots of humans take a refuge for friendship with animals, because the brutality of human is more dangerous than animal.” Despite this, animals are subjected to cruelty by human beings for their benefit.
Child In Conflict With Law Under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2...Free Law - by De Jure
Children are one of the most valued assets of the future generation who are required to be protected. Recently, there is an unprecedented increase in the juvenile crime rate. This is due to many changes such as behavioral change, lack of education, subjugation, upbringing environment, harassment, lack of parental care, sexual indulgence, violent treatment, poverty, and the advent of modern lifestyle. Shrewd criminals indulge children in criminal activities especially, the ones between 6-12 years because at this point minds are innocent and can be easily manipulated as well as lure them to the world of crime. However, children below 7 years of age cannot be held criminally responsible for an offence because of a lack of understandability and are known as “Doli Incapax Maxim”.
In this modern era of technology, social media is becoming an important component of daily life and the majority of the youth today prefer to communicate their ideas, thoughts, and opinions through it. There are different social media platforms that allow users to access social news, blogs, vlogs, and others in an easy manner. Some of the social media networking sites used extensively include Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook.
Justice, in its most basic definition, is an ideal that stands for something that and just. Fundamentally, it means acting in a just, unbiased, fair, and proper manner. Justice nowadays essentially refers to the acceptance and application of legislatively enacted laws. Furthermore, unlike ancient states, this function is mostly performed by judicial organs in the present environment.
The creation of tribunals was prompted by the need to resolve the situation brought on by the backlog of cases in various Courts, as well as by the necessity to lessen the workload of courts and speed up judgements.
We have often heard about bank frauds, corruption, fabrication of documents, and evasion of taxes, such Crimes cause harm to the economy of the country or threaten a country's economy, ultimately hurting the society. Well, these are what we call white-collar crimes.
Having secured a job, an individual aspires for a better life, a comfortable home, health care, and a pension to take them easily through retirement blues. Key to lead the life out of retirement blues is pension planning for which the savings through Employees’ Provident Funds are important.
The fourth pillar of a democratic country, which we refer to as the media, is the most effective and significant source of information for the general public. TV channels are the fastest and most efficient means of publishing and disseminating news, however this method has recently been surpassed by a competitive market in the media broadcasting sector. As communication technology advanced and public interest in huge, diverse TV channels increased, the industry for Indian broadcasting media became more competitive.
The general maxim "necessity recognizes no law" and "it is the main obligation of man to first aid himself" serve as the foundation for the right of self-defence. Self-preservation is a human trait that, in all practical terms, he shares with every other creature. The first rule of criminal law is self-help. The right to private defence is a significant one, and it is primarily preventive rather than punitive in character. If state assistance is not available, it is nonetheless accessible despite hostility. The right of private defence is purely preventive and not punitive or retributive. Every person in India has the legal right to self-defence of body and property under the penal code outlined nation governing the right to private defence of person and property outlined in Sections 96 to 106. Private defence is a right for everyone.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
1. Constitutional Morality And Judicial
Justice
The dimensions of judicial justice and constitutional morality are the same. Without judicial
justice, constitutional morality is insufficient for the advancement of Indian society; both
indirectly contribute to the expansion of social fairness. Constitutional morality gives the
judge the authority to consider and apply moral principles to constitutional provisions. The
constitutional morality serves as a motivator for the court to change the law to satisfy social
needs.
The judiciary and constitutional morality in India both exist to eliminate injustices and
unconstitutional aspects from society because the Indian constitution incorporates moral and
legal principles.
Also Read: Purpose and Powers of the Court to Issue Commissions
A number of legislation recently passed by the judiciary contradict the idea of constitutional
morality, including:
In the Shreya Singhal Case, 2015, the decriminalisation of Section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code (1860) nullified the provisions of Section 66 of the Information Technology Act (2000).
Opening of the Sabarimala shrine to women of all ages in the case of the Indian Young
Lawyers Association under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 2006
In the 2017 Shayara Bano case, the Triple Talaq law should be outlawed and made illegal.
This article focuses on the overall idea of constitutional morality in the context of judicial
justice, including how they are related, the significance of constitutional morality in the
judiciary, recent judgments passed by the judiciary in support of constitutional morality, as
well as recommendations for constitutional morality that the judiciary should follow.
Introduction
As we can see, the Indian court is using the idea of constitutional morality as a basis for
judicial interpretation to deal with issues in contemporary society. As evidenced by previous
judgments, it serves as a transformational tool for the judiciary to protect individual interests.
The Sabarimala Temple's custom of prohibiting women in their "menstruating years" from
entering was declared illegal by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Young Lawyers
Association & Ors. V. Kerala & Ors., allowing all women to enter regardless of age. In this
case, Lord Ayyappa devotees adhered to their religious conviction that menstruating ladies
should not visit the temple.
The judiciary, on the other hand, viewed this matter through the prism of constitutional
morality and decided in favour of individual rights. The Triple Talaq (Talaq ul Biddat) was
ruled to be invalid and void by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shayara Bano v.
2. Union of India after it examined the case in the context of constitutional morality. As a result,
the Supreme Court has made sure that the supremacy of the constitution and constitutional
morality always prevails above private laws and traditions in its capacity as a custodian and
interpreter of the constitution.
Constitutional Morality Has Evolved
Grote introduced the constitutional morality theory. In order to establish free and peaceful
administration, he described constitutional morality as a mindset that must be shared by a
variety of stakeholders, including individuals, public servants, political parties, the opposition,
and political institutions.
Later, on November 4, 1948, during a discussion in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar,
the chairman of the drafting committee, shared his opinions on constitutional morality. He
argued that only in communities where individuals are deeply ingrained with constitutional
morality, like the one Grote described, should administrative details be included in the
constitution. You could take the chance of leaving the legislature in charge of establishing
administrative concerns by eliminating them from the constitution.
He quoted Grote as saying that Indians "have yet to grasp constitutional morality" and that it
is not a "natural attitude." "Democracy in India" is merely a top-dressing on an inherently
undemocratic Indian soil. Therefore, in their respective opinions, constitutional morality is not
being upheld in India.
How Judicial Decisions Are Transforming the Idea of
Constitutional Morality
Naz Foundation v. Delhi's NCT government (2009)
This was one of the first instances where Section 377 of the IPC—which made "canal
intercourse against the order of nature" a crime—was determined to be unconstitutional. It
violated the privacy of the nation's LGBTQ people and subjected them to discrimination. In
this case, it was determined that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that
"popular morality or public disapproval of certain act is not a valid justification for restriction
of the fundamental rights under Article 21," is clearly in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of
the Indian Constitution.
The idea of constitutional and social morality was examined in this instance, and it was held
that constitutional morality would take precedence over social morality. The court was also
instructed to consider "constitutional morality" and not societal or popular morality when
deciding whether a law could be justified or not.
3. Navtej Singh Johar versus the Indian Union
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 377 of the IPC is unconstitutional because it
discriminates against the LGQBT community and views sexual orientation as an integral part
of their identity, dignity, and autonomy. In this case, Section 377 of the IPC was challenged
because it criminalises "canal intercourse," sexual intercourse against the order of nature.
The Supreme Court issued this ruling in accordance with constitutional morality, declaring
that the court must be "directed by the theory of constitutional morality and not by the
conception of society morality" and not be "remotely driven by majoritarian opinion or
popular perception."
"Public morality" and "constitutional morality" are distinct, according to Justice Chandrachud.
As opposed to the latter, which "requires that an individual's rights ought not to be affected
by popular concepts of society," the former states that "the behaviour of society is controlled
by popular views extant in society."
Kerala State v. Indian Young Lawyers Association
Due to the fact that it concerns the admission of women to the Sabarimala shrine, this
litigation is sometimes referred to as the Sabarimala temple case. According to their religious
principles, Lord Ayappa's followers restrict menstruation women from entering the temple.
The court decided in favour of women, holding that the Sabarimala Temple's practise of
barring entry to women in their "menstruating years" violated Articles 15, 17, 25, and 26 of
the Indian Constitution and was therefore unconstitutional.
By ensuring that constitutional morality always takes precedence over traditions and
religious views, the court safeguarded the range of individual rights while considering this
matter from the perspective of constitutional morality.
Constitutional morality's importance in the judiciary
The Supreme Court repeatedly invoked the Doctrine of Constitutional Morality in earlier
rulings by rendering a landmark decision. It is a relatively new idea. The concept of
constitutional morality and judicial principles assumes many forms and has numerous
ramifications for the freedom and dignity of the individual in a democratic society. In recent
years, the Indian judiciary has increasingly used this word in a variety of judgements.
Since the term "constitutional morality" isn't mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, it too is a
matter of judicial interpretation. Constitutional morality can be broken down into two
subcategories in the modern era: as the spirit or power of the Constitution and as the
opposite of popular morality. This progressive and revolutionary concept, as it has come to
be known, has been used by the Supreme Court in a number of instances, some of which
may rank among its most notable and significant rulings. Its goal was to ensure that the
4. constitution's principles prevailed over the populace's malleable morality. The Delhi High
Court's judgement in Navtej Singh Johar's case was later confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Criticisms
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly is a premise that is explained by the
doctrine of colorable legislation.
The Judiciary is an autonomous branch of government that is charged by the Constitution
with resolving conflicts in a fair and just manner. It is dedicated to upholding law and order as
well as the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and state laws. The primary argument
against the Doctrine of Constitutional Morality as a judicial principle is that it is unmistakably
in violation of a fundamental democratic principle, namely, the separation of powers between
the three branches of the State's government: the judiciary, legislature, and executive.
Another argument made by those who disagree with the idea of constitutional morality is that
it has been left up to individual judges to decide what it means and how to apply it.
Furthermore, by giving the courts the authority to use a "top-down approach" in the name of
the morality front concept, it obstructs the organic and natural evolution of liberalism or the
correction of societal wrongs or ethical problems. A judiciary that fairly restricts its power and
sparingly withdraws its jurisdiction when necessary escapes public scrutiny and lacks
accountability.
Conclusion
All responsible people ought to be indoctrinated with a sense of constitutional morality. It
may be argued that rather than being a means of thwarting or resolving government action,
Ambedkar and Grote both considered constitutional morality as a self-imposed restriction by
the people to uphold the constitutional ideals. But more than 70 years after Dr. Ambedkar
delivered his presentation to the Constituent Assembly in 1948, numerous academics and
courts have given the idea a number of different interpretations.
Constitutional morality must be upheld by individuals as well as the judiciary and the
government. The preamble of the constitution explicitly mentions the kind of society we hope
to create; it can only be realised through constitutional morality.
In the past few years, the judiciary has set forward-thinking and historic precedents where
this theory has been used specifically in situations involving gender-justice, institutional
propriety, social uplift, reducing majoritarianism, and other such problems. Achieving justice,
social, economic, and political equality—a triune phenomenon enshrined as a pledge in the
Preambular Glory of our Constitution—requires adherence to constitutional morality and
judicial values, which are inalienable. The Constitution, which represents the people's desire
to be governed, is not an end in and of itself. Rather, it is a means to that end.
5. The two-pronged definition of constitutional morality for the time being entails: first, a legal
mechanism for countering popular morality; and second, a reminder that courts should keep
themselves free of, sometimes rigid, societal beliefs and opinions that need to be
modernised for the benefit and overall advancement of the country. By enabling the courts to
look into the spirit and intent of the Indian Constitution, it also helps keep the government
accountable.
It is appropriately categorised as a second basic structural doctrine as a result. As with most
other constitutional principles, which are largely dependent on the interpretation of judges
while rendering judgements in various scenarios, it is appropriately vague and confusing in
its definition. However, it is necessary due to the country's judicial system and the
requirement that judges fill the "empty vessels of these theories" with words derived from
their years of practise and legal expertise.