On February 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India will hear a case on Article 141, reaffirming its binding authority on all courts. It also challenges the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which excluded the CJI from the selection panel. The ruling could redefine judiciary-executive relations and the balance of power. In such a case , can Supreme court become an Interim Parliament , is what the question arises and needs to be answered!
NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court of India is set to hear an important case on February 12, 2025, that could significantly impact the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature. The case revolves around the interpretation of Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, which states that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.
The case also challenges the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, which removed the Chief Justice of India (CJI) from the selection panel for appointing Election Commissioners. This decision could shape the future relationship between the judiciary and the executive.
Background of the Case
In March 2023, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court gave an important judgment in the case of Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India. The court ruled that the President of India should appoint Election Commissioners based on the recommendation of a committee consisting of:
- The Prime Minister,
- The Leader of the Opposition (or the leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha), and
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI).
This decision was aimed at ensuring the neutrality, fairness, and independence of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
However, in December 2023, the Indian Parliament passed a new law that replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Minister in the selection panel. This move has led to a legal challenge, questioning whether Parliament can override the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling without a constitutional amendment.
The Petitioner’s Argument
The petitioner has argued that the Supreme Court, in its Anoop Baranwal judgment, clearly stated that a diverse committee was necessary to protect the independence, honesty, and neutrality of the Election Commission of India. The primary concerns raised include:
- The government should not have exclusive control over the appointment of Election Commissioners.
- The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on Article 324 of the Constitution, which governs the Election Commission.
- Any change to this ruling must be made through a constitutional amendment, not by passing a statutory law.
The most critical issue in this case is whether a law passed by Parliament can dilute or bypass the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 141.
Justice Surya Kant emphasized the significance of the case, stating:
“The real test here is between the court’s opinion and exercise of legislative powers.”
The bench hearing the case also highlighted that this is fundamentally a test of legitimacy—whether the power of the judiciary (Article 141) or the legislature is supreme in such matters.
What is Article 141?
Article 141 of the Indian Constitution states:
“The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”
This means that any principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all lower courts, and even the Supreme Court itself must follow its past decisions unless a larger bench overrules it.
Major Supreme Court Judgments on Article 141
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh
In this case, the Supreme Court explained the importance of precedents and how they ensure consistency in legal decisions. The court stated:
“The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of daily affairs and, therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a Court.”
This means that Supreme Court judgments provide a stable foundation for legal interpretation and ensure uniformity in law.
Dr. Shah Faesal and Others v. Union of India
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified what exactly is considered law under Article 141. The court observed:
“It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution.”
This means that while Supreme Court rulings are binding, only the legal principles established in a judgment carry the force of law.
Legal Expertise on Article 141
Former Supreme Court Justice Ashok K. Ganguly
In his book ‘Landmark Judgments that Changed India’, Justice Ganguly wrote about the unique power of the Indian Supreme Court under Article 141. He quoted former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said:
“The chief lawmakers in our country may be, and often are, the judges, because they are the final seat of authority. Every time they interpret contract, property, vested rights, due process of law, liberty, they necessarily enact into law parts of a system of social philosophy; and as such interpretation is fundamental, they give direction to all law-making.”
In her book 10 Judgements That Changed India, Zia Mody highlights two key points regarding judicial lawmaking. She refers to Justice Markandey Katju’s views, where he acknowledged the existence of “hundreds of pressing social needs” but emphasized that the court should not step in to address them merely due to the absence of laws.
He particularly questioned the Supreme Court’s role in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, where a three-judge bench issued directives that were treated as law under Article 141 of the Constitution. While agreeing that workplace harassment laws were necessary, he raised concerns about whether the court’s directives were constitutionally valid.
He argued that the judiciary, in effect, acted as an “interim Parliament,” legislating until lawmakers stepped in, which he found questionable.
Mody further notes that some scholars believe the Vishaka judgment led to “institutionalized judicial lawmaking.” Since Supreme Court rulings are binding under Article 141, the court’s guidelines became de facto law. Even though they were meant to be temporary, their impact was similar to formal legislation. She argues that rather than merely filling a legislative gap, the court addressed a “democratic deficit.”
She also references the legal theorist Cardozo, who famously stated that
“judges don’t discover law, they create it,”
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE