Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court declined to legalize same-sex marriage, exemplifying judicial restraint in policy matters. Which principle best explains this approach?
- Courts should always defer to executive discretion
- Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values against legislative/executive excess
- Courts have unlimited power to make policy decisions
- Courts should avoid all cases involving social issues
Answer: Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values against legislative/executive excess
Supriyo (2023) judicial restraint and legislative domain: (a) Context: Petitions seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage under Special Marriage Act, 1954, (b) Supreme Court holding (5-judge Constitution Bench, 3:2 on key issues): (i) No fundamental right to marry under Constitution (though marriage protected under personal laws), (ii) Recognition of same-sex marriage involves complex policy considerations (adoption, succession, maintenance, social welfare) best left to Parliament, (iii) However, affirmed rights of queer couples: protection from discrimination, right to cohabit, access to services without discrimination, (iv) Directed government to form committee to examine rights/entitlements of queer couples, (c) Judicial restraint principle: (i) Separation of powers: Courts recognize limits of judicial expertise in complex policy design but assert role in protecting constitutional values, (ii) Democratic legitimacy: Marriage recognition requires broad social consensus, legislative deliberation, not judicial fiat, (iii) Rights protection: Affirms core rights (non-discrimination, dignity) while deferring complex policy questions to legislature, (d) Applications: (i) Legislative follow-up: Ongoing debate on civil unions, marriage equality, anti-discrimination law, (ii) Rights protection: Courts continue to protect queer rights through existing constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 15, 19, 21), (iii) Institutional reform: Directions for sensitization of police, judiciary, healthcare providers, (e) Rationale: (i) Institutional competence: Courts expert in constitutional interpretation, rights protection; legislatures expert in policy design, social consensus-building, (ii) Democratic accountability: Policy decisions affecting society should be made through democratic process, not judicial decree, (iii) Rights protection: Courts protect constitutional values against legislative/executive excess while respecting democratic domain, (f) Illustrates calibrated judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in policy domain, activism in rights protection; balance between constitutional values and democratic legitimacy essential to constitutional democracy.