DOES THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE HAVE A PLACE IN THE INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SETUP?: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH THE LENS OF LANDMARK SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Abstract

The power of judicial review has been recognised as an intrinsic feature in a constitutional democracy. It acts as a check against arbitrary legislative and executive action. However, this power is not unfettered. In order to prevent judicial adventurism, the judiciary has devised some self-imposed principles of restraint, one of which is the political question doctrine. Having its roots in the American constitutional jurisprudence, the doctrine warrants judicial abstention in issues which are deemed better suited to be dealt with either by the legislature or executive on account of them being ‘political’ in nature. The doctrine has been relied upon by US Courts to refuse adjudication upon political issues in several cases, but its exact scope of application remains ambiguous. This has invited scholars to present different approaches towards interpreting the doctrine, with some considering it to be recurrent in the court’s practice, while others aiming to disprove its very existence. The judiciary and legal fraternity have largely remained aloof from undertaking an in-depth analysis of this doctrine in the Indian context; though interestingly, the Supreme Court has touched upon its scope of application in some of its landmark decisions. This article seeks to determine the political question doctrine’s place in the Indian constitutional set-up by tracing the Supreme Court’s approach towards its application. An effort is also made to analyse the extant literature and judicial pronouncements pertaining to the doctrine in order to discern its exact meaning and import.