The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of periodic legislative reviews during a hearing on Maneka Gandhi’s challenge against the 45-day limit for filing election petitions. Justices suggested evaluations every 20 to 50 years to identify shortcomings in laws. Although the court declined Gandhi’s plea, it advocated forming an expert body to enhance legislative efficacy and address deficiencies.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Jan 7th) mentioned the importance of periodic legislative reviews to assess the efficacy and address deficiencies in the implementation of laws. This observation came during the hearing of a plea filed by former Union minister Maneka Gandhi, challenging the 45-day limit for filing election petitions under the Representation of the People Act.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh emphasized the need for systematic legislative evaluations.
“Whenever a new law is enacted, there should be its legislative review from time to time. Reviews should not only be confined to judicial reviews but there should be even legislative review. You may have it every 20 years, 25 years or say 50 years, it will help in examining the shortcomings, if any,”
the bench remarked.
The court declined to entertain Gandhi’s plea, citing its inability to legislate or open the floodgates for similar petitions. However, it suggested the formation of an expert body to conduct reviews and highlight deficiencies and grey areas in legislations.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Gandhi, supported the court’s stance, advocating for regular audits of laws.
“We can’t have a legislation that is cast in stone. That unless a stimulus comes either from the court or otherwise and then there is an amendment,”
Luthra argued.
The bench’s observations underscore the necessity of dynamic governance frameworks to ensure laws remain relevant and effective in addressing contemporary challenges. Legislative reviews, conducted at intervals such as 20, 25, or 50 years, could provide crucial insights into the functioning of laws and pave the way for necessary amendments.
Periodic legislative audits would not only complement judicial reviews but also strengthen the legislative process by identifying and addressing potential shortcomings proactively. The court’s call for an expert body to undertake such evaluations reflects a forward-thinking approach to governance.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES