Search This Blog

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Federalism and the Judiciary in South Asia...

Federalism, combined with various forms of local self government, has been the method of choice for India, but it has been resisted in all other states in the region.

Failure to adopt a federal solution as a means of accommodation, was an important factor in the ultimate breakup of Pakistan, with the separation of the Eastern wing and the formation of Bangladesh.

India has developed distinctive forms of federalism, in which state and national politics have been intertwined and in which the balance of powers between the centre and the states has undergone significant changes over time. In fact federalism in India, perhaps more than in any other federal system, has involved continuous negotiation concerning the relations between the centre and the states.

There has been gradual assertion and reassertion of the authority of the supreme court to oversee and limit, albeit rarely to invalidate, laws passed by parliament. after many setbacks, including strong efforts to control, suppress, and overturn its judgements and interfere in its functioning, especially during Indira Gandhi's years in power, it has emerged with a stable, authoritative position in the Indian political order.

Once again, the contrast with Pakistan is Stark. Where as, in India, the supreme Court has gradually asserted it's separate domain of authority against attempts to undermine it, in Pakistan, in contrast, the supreme court, and the judiciary in general continue to struggle to formulate a set of criteria that would enable it to challenge effectively and consistently, the repeated assumptions of executive power over it.

And in Sri Lanka, the three successive constitutions have, in several ways, limited the powers of the judiciary, especially with regard to judicial review of laws passed by Parliament and the powers of the president.

Acknowldegement : Excerpted from the Routledge Handbook of South Asian Politics.

No comments:

Post a Comment