“Compelling action by authorities of the states through the power of mandamus is an inherent power vested in the judiciary,” said India's Prime Minister, but warned that “substituting mandamus with a takeover of the functions of another organ may, at times, become a case of over-reach…these are all delicate issues which need to be addressed cautiously.” Manmohan Singh was speaking at a conference of regional chief ministers and high court chief justices in April 2007. A similar point was made by a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in March 2007 who cautioned the courts on legitimate and illegitimate intervention; and also by the Speaker of the legislature who said, “I will be failing in my duty if I do not point out that there has been an encroachment in the legislative arena.” These cautionary words from the heads of the legislature, executive, and the judiciary imply that the Indian courts have not just been activist, but over-activist. Is that true? In the last two decades, the higher judiciary in India transformed non-justiciable economic and social rights such as basic education, health, food, shelter, speedy trial, privacy, anti–child labor, and equal wages for equal work into legally enforceable rights. In a famous judgment on the right to education, the judges even said that a right could be treated as fundamental even if it was not present in the fundamental rights section of the constitution.

Courting Social Justice: Courts and Socioeconomic Rights in India

The purpose of this article is to contribute to the development of a better fit between theory and methodology in judicial behavior research by reviewing, assessing, and making recommendations for the use of the latter. The methodological practice of judicial behavior research is assessed, and recommendations and projections to the future are provided. Four components of methodology—research design, data sources and generation procedures, operationalization and measurement of concepts, and statistical methods and measures—are discussed. Judicial behavior is understood to have a primary focus on the explanation of the behavior of individual decision makers, but also includes decision making within or by groups of decision makers and by courts.

The methodology of judicial behavior research: A review and critique

Are tenured judges insulated from political pressure

Since 2005, India has introduced a series of progressive social acts that legislate a right to various socioeconomic entitlements. These range from information, work, and education to forest conservation, food, and public service. Three features distinguish these acts: the explicit use of rights-based claims; the design of innovative governance mechanisms that seek to enhance the transparency, responsiveness, and accountability of the state; and the role played by social activists and activist judges in spearheading these pieces of legislation with the help of progressive party politicians. This paper analyzes a key slow-burning stimulus of India’s new rights-based welfare paradigm: the socially activist turn of its Supreme Court. I address two main questions. First, what explains the rise of progressive socioeconomic jurisprudence in India in the late 1970s? Following the prevailing scholarly consensus, I analyze the role of antecedent conditions and particular causal mechanisms to explain high judicial activism in India: deepening political fragmentation, endogenous judicial change, and the strategic political retreat of elected representatives. None of these factors can fully explain the timing, sequence, and focus of the social activist turn of the Indian Supreme Court in the late 1970s, however, which owed much to the rise of popular social formations during these years and their proliferation in the 1980s. Thus the complex interaction effects of several causal factors, whose weight has differed over time, provides a more convincing explanation. Second, what have been the achievements and failures of high judicial activism in India regarding socioeconomic rights? As many scholars persuasively demonstrate, its direct impact has been limited, while its pro-poor posture has been inconsistent. However, by focusing excessively on direct material consequences in the short-run, these studies discount the powerful long-term ramifications, many of which are symbolic and indirect, of the Indian Supreme Court’s earlier progressive turn.

/pdf/a-progressive-juristocracy-the-unexpected-social-activism-of-50eu23hhqi.pdf

George H. Gadbois

Papers

Indian Supreme Court Judges: A Portrait