Law Commons^™

This article examines judicial challenges to central government power in the Supreme Court of India by analyzing activism and assertiveness in fundamental rights decisions from 1977 to 2007. Based on field research and contextual analysis of politically significant decisions, the article traces patterns of judicial assertiveness in politically significant fundamental rights decisions. During this era, the Court was selectively assertive in challenging the central government in fundamental rights cases. This article provides an explanatory account of the motives and factors that drove the Supreme Court of India‘s selective activism and assertiveness in politically significant fundamental rights decisions. It argues that …

Over the past decade, the push for electoral reform in India and the United States – the world’s two largest democracies – has been promi- nent in the politics and governance of both nations. The supreme courts in each country have played important, but distinct, roles in recent electoral reform efforts, responding to different facets and regimes of political corruption. In the 1990s, the Indian Supreme Court became increasingly assertive in requiring greater levels of dis- closure and transparency for political parties in India. In a series of decisions in 2002 and 2003, the Indian Supreme Court challenged the Central …

This article examines two critical "moments" in the expansion of judicial power in India: the assertion of the basic structure doctrine and the development of the PIL regime in the post-Emergency Indian Court. The Indian Supreme Court asserted two key functional roles in these moments: (1) the role of a constitutional guardian in asserting its role in preserving the basic structure of the Constitution, and (2) as a champion of the rule of law and responsible governance in developing PIL. Though both moments were significant in the empowerment of the Indian Supreme Court, I argue that development of PIL was …