Analyse the doctrine of separation of powers and judicial review....the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi), where it quashed multiple FIRs...Elucidate...

Question: Analyse the doctrine of separation of powers and judicial review....the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi), where it quashed multiple FIRs...Elucidate...

Find the answer to the mains question of Constitutional Law only on Legal Bites. [Analyse the doctrine of separation of powers and judicial review in the context of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi), where it quashed multiple FIRs against a journalist for his tweets and granted him bail. Elucidate with reference to recent cases.]

Answer

Doctrine of separation of powers and the principle of judicial review play crucial roles in the functioning of democratic societies. These concepts ensure a system of checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi), where it quashed multiple FIRs against a journalist for his tweets and granted him bail, provides an opportunity to examine the application of these principles in contemporary jurisprudence.

In Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2022), the Supreme Court exercised its power of judicial review to scrutinize the legality of multiple FIRs lodged against a journalist for his tweets. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression, a fundamental right enshrined in the Indian Constitution. By quashing the FIRs, the Court asserted its authority to prevent executive overreach and uphold constitutional values.

Furthermore, the decision underscores the doctrine of separation of powers by delineating the distinct roles of the judiciary and the executive. The Court's intervention in quashing the FIRs exemplifies its function as a check on the executive, ensuring that governmental actions comply with constitutional principles and do not infringe upon individual liberties.

Recent cases, such as Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), also demonstrate the judiciary's proactive role in safeguarding constitutional rights. In the Aadhaar case, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right, limiting the executive's authority to implement policies that encroach upon citizens' privacy.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court scrutinized the actions of the investigating authorities, particularly the police, to the tweets made by the petitioner, who is a journalist. The Court found that the police had violated Section 41(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by failing to record the reasons for the necessity of the petitioner's arrest. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the law, especially the amended provisions of Chapter V of the CrPC, which restrict the power of police to arrest individuals without sufficient grounds for custodial interrogation.

Furthermore, the Court invoked constitutional principles, particularly Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, to the petitioner's journalistic freedom and right to liberty. Citing the judgment in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, [Writ Petition (Crl) No. 130 of 2020], the Court underscored the importance of ensuring freedom from arrest or interference with liberty for journalists to exercise their artistic and journalistic freedom under Article 19(1)(a).

The Court highlighted the need to balance the enforcement of criminal law with safeguarding individual liberties, dignity, and freedom. It cautioned against the misuse of law for targeted harassment and emphasized the importance of fair trial principles, particularly under Section 437 of the CrPC. The Court referenced the judgment in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 77 to emphasize the disproportionate nature of imposing a blanket ban on tweeting as a precondition for bail.

Overall, the Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Zubair’s case exemplifies the judiciary's pivotal role in upholding constitutional values and maintaining the balance of power in a democratic society. Through its exercise of judicial review, the Court safeguarded freedom of speech and expression, ensuring that executive actions conform to constitutional standards. This decision, along with other recent cases, highlights the judiciary's commitment to protecting individual rights and preserving the principles of separation of powers in India's democratic framework.