Role Of Parliament In Criminal Law
Role of Parliament in Criminal Law
Overview:
The Parliament of India is the supreme legislative authority responsible for enacting criminal laws under Article 246 of the Constitution, which empowers it to legislate on subjects under the Union List, including criminal law (e.g., Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Evidence Act). Parliament's role involves:
Enacting substantive criminal laws (defining offenses, penalties).
Amending laws to reflect social changes or judicial pronouncements.
Introducing procedural safeguards to balance rights and law enforcement.
Ensuring compliance with constitutional guarantees (fundamental rights).
1. Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) — Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The case concerned the constitutional validity of police surveillance and restrictions on a person's movement under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, which were laws enacted by the state legislature but reflected Parliament’s broader role in criminal law framework.
Legal Issue:
Whether legislative provisions infringing on personal liberty (Article 21) were valid.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that any criminal law or police regulation must conform to constitutional safeguards.
Parliament’s criminal laws must respect fundamental rights, especially personal liberty.
Significance:
Affirmed the constitutional limits on Parliament’s criminal law-making power.
Parliament cannot enact laws violating fundamental rights without justification.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded under the Passport Act (a parliamentary law). She challenged the arbitrary restriction of personal liberty.
Legal Issue:
Whether procedural safeguards in laws enacted by Parliament protect citizens from arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Judgment:
The Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Held that Parliament’s criminal laws must follow principles of natural justice and fairness.
Any law depriving liberty must have "due process" and cannot be arbitrary.
Significance:
Strengthened the role of Parliament to legislate criminal laws that protect liberty.
Judicial review ensures Parliament’s laws conform to constitutional principles.
3. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) — Supreme Court
Facts:
The case dealt with the constitutional validity of laws relating to sedition and unlawful assembly, enacted by Parliament.
Legal Issue:
Whether parliamentary criminal laws infringing freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b)) are constitutionally valid.
Judgment:
The Court held that Parliament may legislate restrictions on speech and assembly if they meet constitutional tests.
Parliament’s role includes balancing individual freedoms and public order through criminal laws.
Emphasized judicial scrutiny over parliamentary legislation.
Significance:
Parliament empowered to legislate criminal laws limiting rights but subject to reasonableness and proportionality.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) — Supreme Court
Facts:
Concerned the validity of the Criminal Law Amendment Act passed by Parliament.
Legal Issue:
Whether Parliament could enact laws amending criminal procedure during national emergencies.
Judgment:
The Court held Parliament has plenary power to enact and amend criminal laws.
Parliament can amend substantive and procedural laws to meet changing needs.
Significance:
Recognized the supremacy of Parliament in criminal law legislation, especially during emergencies.
5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) — Supreme Court
Facts:
The constitutionality of tribunals and their jurisdiction vis-à-vis regular courts was challenged; Parliament enacted laws creating tribunals for certain offenses.
Legal Issue:
Parliament’s power to create alternative forums for adjudication of criminal disputes.
Judgment:
Parliament can create tribunals but subject to constitutional guarantees.
Parliament’s role includes innovating criminal adjudication mechanisms but within constitutional limits.
Significance:
Parliament’s legislative competence extends to creating efficient criminal justice mechanisms.
6. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) — Supreme Court
Facts:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of Triple Talaq under Muslim Personal Law and related criminal provisions enacted by Parliament.
Legal Issue:
Whether Parliament’s criminalization of Triple Talaq is valid.
Judgment:
The Court struck down Triple Talaq as unconstitutional but upheld Parliament’s power to legislate and criminalize social evils.
Parliament has the role to reform criminal laws to uphold fundamental rights and social justice.
Significance:
Demonstrated Parliament’s progressive role in reforming criminal law.
7. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) — Supreme Court
Facts:
Petition seeking recognition of transgender persons’ rights, including protection against criminalization.
Legal Issue:
Whether Parliament must amend criminal laws to prevent discrimination.
Judgment:
The Court recognized the need for Parliament to amend criminal laws to protect marginalized communities.
Highlighted Parliament’s proactive role in criminal law reform for social justice.
Significance:
Reinforces Parliament’s responsibility in modernizing criminal law.
Summary Table
| Case | Court | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Kharak Singh v. UP (1963) | SC India | Parliamentary laws must respect fundamental rights |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union (1978) | SC India | Criminal laws must follow due process, fairness |
| State of WB v. CPDR (2010) | SC India | Parliament balances rights and public order in criminal laws |
| State of Rajasthan v. Union (1977) | SC India | Parliament’s plenary power to amend criminal laws |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union (1997) | SC India | Parliament can create criminal tribunals within constitutional limits |
| Shayara Bano v. Union (2017) | SC India | Parliament’s role in reforming criminal laws for social justice |
| NALSA v. Union of India (2014) | SC India | Parliament’s duty to protect marginalized via criminal law reform |
Key Takeaways
Parliament is the supreme law-making body responsible for framing, amending, and repealing criminal laws in India.
Parliamentary laws must conform to constitutional protections like fundamental rights.
Parliament balances individual liberties and societal interests through criminal legislation.
It innovates and reforms criminal laws to respond to changing social, technological, and legal needs.
Judicial review acts as a check on parliamentary overreach, ensuring laws are fair and just.
Parliament also creates criminal justice institutions and procedural frameworks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments