The Politics of Welfare and Rights Judicial Review of Populist Governance in India

Article Sidebar

Download PDF
Published: Mar 9, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48161/qpj.v4n1a16
Keywords:
welfare populism, judicial review, directive principles of state policy, fiscal responsibility, substantive equality

Main Article Content

Sayyad Ismail Sayyad Nasir
Jamia College of Law, Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhari North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, India
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1576-0111
Rafaela Iansen Miranda Silva
Law School, Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, São Paulo, Brazil
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1659-906X

Abstract

This essay discusses judicial review of welfare-oriented populist governance in India, with the constitutional dilemmas between electoral populism, financial accountability and welfare as a right. It examines the manner in which Indian courts interact with welfare schemes widely decried as freebies and at the same time identify the constitutional requirement of social justice as enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The paper discusses the changing role of the judiciary as a controller of economic populism, and determines whether judicial intervention in the welfare policy enhances constitutional responsibility or threatens to invade democratic and fiscal realms, historically the preserve of elected governments. The paper aspires to consider the validity of substantive equality and constitutional citizenship in placing welfare schemes within the wider framework of redistribution or electorate manipulation through these schemes. It is also an analysis of the consequences of judicial review on fiscal federalism and political responsibility based on a principled and balanced judicial practice that holds constitutional welfare promises consistent with democratic choice and economic viability.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 4 No. 1 (2025)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

. Chacko, P. (2018). The right turn in India: Authoritarianism, populism and neoliberalisation. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 48(4), 541-565.

. Chakrabarti, K., & Bandyopadhyay, K. K. (2021). Populism in contemporary Indian politics. Populism in Asian Democracies: Features, Structures, and Impacts.

. Tushnet, M. V., Courts, W., & Rights, S. (2007). Judical Review And Social Welfare Right In Comparative Constitutional Law.

. State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.

. Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.

. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545

. S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659

. R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675

. Campbell, T. (2010). Justice, humanity, and prudence. Public policy: Why ethics matters, 21-36.

. Lacey, N. (2019). Populism and the Rule of Law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15(1), 79-96.

. McClain, L. C., & Fleming, J. E. (2005). Constitutionalism, judicial review, and progressive change.

. Chemerinsky, E. (2004). In defense of judicial review: The perils of popular constitutionalism. U. Ill. L. Rev., 673.

. Reddy, Y. V. (2013). India and the global financial crisis: Managing money and finance. Orient BlackSwan.

. Super, D. A. (2004). Rethinking fiscal federalism. Harv. L. Rev., 118, 2544.

. McGinnis, J. O., & Somin, I. (2004). Federalism vs. States' Rights: A Defense of Judicial Review in a Federal System. Nw. UL Rev., 99, 89.

. Blokker, P. (2019). Populism as a constitutional project. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 536-553.

. Carney, T. (2000). Protection, populism and citizenship. Law in Context, 17(2), 54-76.

. Charles, G. U. E., & Fuentes-Rohwer, L. E. (2018). Judicial intervention as judicial restraint. Harv. L. Rev., 132, 236.

. Butt, D. (2007). Democracy, the courts and the making of public policy.

Chacko, P. (2018). The right turn in India: Authoritarianism, populism and neoliberalisation. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 48(4), 541-565.

Chakrabarti, K., & Bandyopadhyay, K. K. (2021). Populism in contemporary Indian politics. Populism in Asian Democracies: Features, Structures, and Impacts.

Tushnet, M. V., Courts, W., & Rights, S. (2007). Judical Review And Social Welfare Right In Comparative Constitutional Law.

State of Madras v Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.

Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.

Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545

S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 9 SCC 659

R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) 4 SCC 675

Campbell, T. (2010). Justice, humanity, and prudence. Public policy: Why ethics matters, 21-36.

Lacey, N. (2019). Populism and the Rule of Law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15(1), 79-96.

McClain, L. C., & Fleming, J. E. (2005). Constitutionalism, judicial review, and progressive change.

Chemerinsky, E. (2004). In defense of judicial review: The perils of popular constitutionalism. U. Ill. L. Rev., 673.

Reddy, Y. V. (2013). India and the global financial crisis: Managing money and finance. Orient BlackSwan.

Super, D. A. (2004). Rethinking fiscal federalism. Harv. L. Rev., 118, 2544.

McGinnis, J. O., & Somin, I. (2004). Federalism vs. States' Rights: A Defense of Judicial Review in a Federal System. Nw. UL Rev., 99, 89.

Blokker, P. (2019). Populism as a constitutional project. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 536-553.

Carney, T. (2000). Protection, populism and citizenship. Law in Context, 17(2), 54-76.

Charles, G. U. E., & Fuentes-Rohwer, L. E. (2018). Judicial intervention as judicial restraint. Harv. L. Rev., 132, 236.

Butt, D. (2007). Democracy, the courts and the making of public policy.