The Doctrine of Political Question refers to the principle where courts refrain from adjudicating issues that are constitutionally delegated to the executive or legislative branches, emphasizing the separation of powers.

MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

The Doctrine of Political Question posits that certain matters are inherently political and, therefore, beyond the purview of judicial review. This doctrine ensures that courts do not encroach upon functions explicitly assigned to the executive or legislature, maintaining the balance of power among government branches. In essence, it delineates the boundary between justiciable issues suitable for judicial determination and political questions reserved for other governmental organs.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

Originating in the United States, the doctrine was notably articulated in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), where the U.S. Supreme Court outlined criteria to identify political questions. The Court stated that a political question exists when there is:

• “A textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.”
• “A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.”
• “The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion.”
• “The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government.”
• “An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made.”
• “The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.”

In India, the doctrine’s applicability has been debated, given the Constitution’s distinct separation of powers. The Supreme Court has addressed this doctrine in various cases, adapting its principles to the Indian constitutional framework.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

In the United States, the doctrine is well-established, with courts often invoking it to avoid adjudicating issues like foreign policy and impeachment procedures. In contrast, the United Kingdom does not formally recognize the doctrine but practices judicial restraint in matters deemed inappropriate for judicial review, such as national security and foreign affairs. In India, while the doctrine is not explicitly recognized, courts have occasionally exercised restraint in politically sensitive matters, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the separation of powers.

ESSENTIALS / ELEMENTS / PRE-REQUISITES

For a matter to be considered a political question in the Indian context, the following elements are typically present:

• Textual Commitment: The Constitution explicitly assigns the issue to another branch of government.
• Lack of Judicial Standards: Absence of clear legal standards for the judiciary to resolve the issue.
• Policy Determination: Resolution requires policy decisions beyond judicial expertise.
• Respect for Other Branches: Judicial intervention would show a lack of respect for other governmental branches.
• Potential for Embarrassment: Multiple pronouncements by different branches could lead to confusion.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the Doctrine of Political Question, certain articles imply the separation of powers:

• Article 53: Vests executive power in the President.
• Article 122: Courts cannot inquire into proceedings of Parliament.
• Article 212: Courts cannot inquire into proceedings of state legislatures.

These provisions suggest areas where judicial intervention is limited, aligning with the principles underlying the doctrine.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

Several Indian cases have touched upon the doctrine:

1. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592:
   The Supreme Court dealt with the justiciability of the President’s Rule under Article 356. The Court observed that while the proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, the scope is limited, especially when the satisfaction of the President involves political considerations.

2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1:
   This landmark judgment further clarified the scope of judicial review concerning the imposition of President’s Rule. The Court held that the proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review to assess whether it was based on relevant material and whether the power was exercised mala fide. However, the Court also acknowledged that certain political matters might not be suitable for judicial determination.

3. R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 324:
   The Court addressed the validity of the Constitution (36th Amendment) Act, which granted statehood to Sikkim. It was contended that the terms of admission of a new territory into the Union were political questions. The Court conceded that such matters involve political issues of considerable complexity, many of which may not be judicially manageable.

INTERPRETATIONS / EXPLANATIONS

The Indian judiciary has interpreted the doctrine with caution. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271, the Court observed that the constitutional mechanism does not contemplate any function designated as political, with orders made in exercise thereof not liable to be tested for validity before lawfully constituted courts. This indicates the Court’s reluctance to apply the doctrine rigidly, ensuring that even politically sensitive matters are open to judicial scrutiny when they involve constitutional violations.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

The Doctrine of Political Question is closely related to:

• Separation of Powers: Ensures that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches function independently without encroaching upon each other’s domains.