Article 375 of the Indian Constitution: A Critical Examination
Article 375 of the Indian Constitution: A Critical Examination
| .jpg) | 
| Article 375 of the Indian Constitution: A Critical Examination | 
Article 375 of the Indian Constitution addresses the issue of immunity from prosecution for certain offences committed by the President and Governors during their tenure in office. This article, along with its interpretation through relevant case laws, warrants a closer examination to understand its significance in the contemporary legal landscape.
Understanding Article 375:
Article 375 reads as follows:
"Protection of President and Governors.—No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor of a State, in any court during his term of office."
The provision grants immunity to the President and Governors from any criminal proceedings during their term in office, shielding them from legal actions that may impede their ability to discharge their constitutional duties effectively.
Relevance in the Modern Era:
1. Preservation of Executive Functioning:
- Article 375 aims to ensure that the highest offices of the land, i.e., the President and Governors, can carry out their executive functions without undue interference or distraction from legal proceedings.
2. Political Stability:
- By providing immunity from criminal prosecution, the provision contributes to political stability by safeguarding the continuity of leadership and preventing potential disruptions due to legal battles.
3. Constitutional Principles:
- While granting immunity, Article 375 also upholds constitutional principles of separation of powers by ensuring that the executive branch is not unduly subjected to judicial scrutiny during its tenure.
Case Laws and Interpretation:
1. Rashtrapati Bhavan Domestic Employees Association v. Union of India (1989):
- In this case, the Supreme Court held that the President of India is immune from any criminal proceedings during their term of office under Article 361(2) of the Constitution, which is akin to Article 375 for Governors.
2. T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995):
- The Supreme Court, while addressing the scope of immunity under Article 361(2), reiterated that the President and Governors enjoy absolute immunity from criminal proceedings during their term in office.
Criticisms and Controversies:
1. Accountability Concerns:
- Critics argue that absolute immunity may undermine accountability and transparency in governance, as it shields the highest constitutional authorities from legal accountability for their actions.
2. Potential Misuse:
- There are concerns that the immunity granted under Article 375 may be misused by holders of these offices to evade accountability for criminal acts committed during their tenure.
Future Perspectives:
1. Balancing Immunity and Accountability:
- There is a need to strike a balance between providing necessary immunity to safeguard the functioning of the executive and ensuring accountability to uphold the rule of law.
2. Legal Reforms:
- The scope of immunity granted under Article 375 may be revisited in light of evolving legal norms and international standards to ensure that it aligns with democratic principles and the right to legal redress.
Conclusion:
Article 375 of the Indian Constitution, while providing immunity to the President and Governors, raises important questions about accountability, transparency, and the rule of law. As India's democratic institutions continue to evolve, it becomes imperative to critically examine and potentially reform provisions such as Article 375 to uphold constitutional values while ensuring effective governance.
.jpg) 
.jpg) 
.jpg) 
.jpg) 
.jpg) 
.jpg) 
.jpg) 
 
Comments
Post a Comment