Presented by the Brown University Watson Institute for International Studies
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/
The rise of an Indian "juristocracy" will increasingly reshape the fundamental association of law and order in the country, according to noted political theorist and writer Pratap Bhanu Mehta. His recent lecture at Watson, "On the Construction of Judicial Authority: Courts and Public Reason in India," focused on this gradual buildup of political power by the judicial branch of the Indian government. The judiciary has assumed the role of conflict mediator and adopted a policy of political compromise, Mehta said, and "what you find the courts doing is shifting the ground on which they construct their authority."
Mehta outlined his position by identifying several key disjunctions within the judicial process. The "nexus between law and order," for instance, informs our modern understanding of the justice system. He addressed the role of the courts in ordering these principles, questioning whether the judiciary should primarily uphold existing laws or push to enact new legislation. The issue of emergency powers provides an example of this ambivalence: Should the courts prosecute extrajudicial action in a time of crisis, or else support the conservative laws already in place?
Mehta then addressed the association of law and representative government as it applies to juridical politics. He argued that the existence of a sovereign or executive power is not sufficient to ensure a stable political system. Rather, the judicial branch operates as an "antidote" to representative politics and has become a general safeguard of the democratic process. Questions arise, however, over the scope of judicial power and the extent to which the courts may alter trends in legislation. "One of the ways in which the Indian Supreme Court has been extremely innovative is expanding the range of rights - everything has become a right," Mehta stated. In a sense, the judiciary has evolved beyond its traditional role as the arbitrator of legal statute and may further contribute to the creation of new laws.
The gradual aggrandizement of the judicial branch, however, prompts a debate over separate political domains. One argument holds that constitutions are inviolable doctrines not to be reshaped by judges on a daily basis. Just how far can the judiciary encroach on other sectors of government? According to Mehta, the judiciary has recently followed a pragmatic agenda in order to facilitate its buildup of political clout. Courts avoid principle-based reasoning and support certain legislation in order to achieve definite ends. Furthermore, the judiciary has pursued a program of conflict mediation between the political spheres. In this climate of compromise, the courts support consensus by means of ambiguous jurisprudence. Mehta ascribed this trend to an increasing self-consciousness on the part of the judiciary. So far, he added, the judicial establishment has distanced itself from most factional issues while embracing its new political power.
Mehta is president of the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. His talk was the launch event in a new year-long South Asian Politics Seminar Series organized by faculty at Brown, Harvard University, and MIT, aimed at filling a long perceived gap in the intellectual discussion in the larger Boston-Providence area of contemporary South Asian politics. It was held in conjunction with the Year of India at Brown.
Loading...
1:03:23
Coming Through Crisis: A New Economic Model Emerges in Latin Americaby Brownuniversity1,142 views
Great!!
katheryncruz24 3 months ago