The Supreme Court of India and the Inter-Institutional Dynamics of Legislated Social Rights

Abstract

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India is generally celebrated in the academic literature for its creative use of constitutional interpretation to read in certain socioeconomic rights into the ‘right to life’ provision despite their textual absence from the Constitution. However, this line of case law made the obtainment of a judicial remedy highly conditional upon an extant scheme or law, was necessarily piecemeal, deferent to the executive, and incapable of fixing precise accountability upon a violation or addressing issues of systemic material insufficiency. Much of this had to do with the absence of a rights-based legislative framework. The enactment of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA) and the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) presented major developments in the livelihood and food security regimes in India, and a leap forward for legislated social rights. These legislations consolidated, expanded and entrenched a number of existing rights which had come into being through judicial decisions. In this paper, I examine the antecedents of social rights in India, and show the afterlife of disagreements over appropriateness, practicality and affordability, which resulted in the adoption of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constituent Assembly, persist in legislative design and judicial reasoning. In this paper, I analyse judicial treatment of these laws and propose a novel theoretical framework for better understanding them. The theoretical framework has discursively antagonistic and discursively catalytic components, and sheds light on the inter-branch institutional dynamic which arises when NFSA and MGNREGA based public interest litigation (PIL) is activated. I suggest that such PIL and the kinds of complex, dialogic remedies which result from them have effects in the political, legal, and social fields. These remedies result in a form of hybridized politico-legal accountability that enables the Supreme Court of India to safeguard its institutional capital, while also being able to better engage with concerns such as polycentricity, democratic legitimacy, lack of expertise, federalism, and the separation of powers.