A lesson for India

The SCOTUS decision underscores afundamental principle:when a constitutional court is faced with a question of law, its duty is to decide that question- clearly and without any fear. The moment a court avoids doing so, defers excessively to the executive, or seeks refuge in committees and procedural devices, it risks abdicating the very responsibility the Constitution entrusts to it. Judicial review is not an exercise in governance. It is an exercise in constitutional fidelity. A court that confines itself to its assigned role does not weaken democracy; it strengthens it by ensuring that every branch of government remains within its constitutional bounds

- AMIT K PAUL

By striking down the tariffs imposed by the President of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has sent a powerful message to Constitutional courts across the world. The Court identified with precision the limited question of law before it, addressed that question directly, and delivered its ruling with clarity and speed. It discharged the responsibility assigned to it by the Constitution ~ without being overwhelmed by the political or economic consequences of its decision, without venturing into the realm of policy prescription, without allowing the question before it to become academic or infructuous and without allowing the policy to remain in a prolonged phase of uncertainty pending adjudication. These are all hallmarks of an institution firmly committed to upholding the majesty of the law, conscious that it is the final interpreter of the Constitution.

Under the United States Constitution, the President heads the executive branch and is charged with implementing laws enacted by the legislature ~Congress. A strict separation of powers ensures that no individual can simultaneously serve in Congress and hold executive office. The judiciary, in turn, retains the final authority to interpret the law, creating a nearly perfect system of checks and balances. The narrow question before SCOTUS in the tariffs case was whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorized the President to impose tariffs. The Court answered in the negative and in words that merit close attention, observed: