Judiciary - From pro-welfare policies to pro-corporate stance

 కారుణ్యం నుండి కార్పొరేట్ల సేవలో 

The Supreme Court of India has undergone a significant transformation over the decades in its approach towards corporate interests, affirmative action, and social welfare. Initially, the court was a champion of socialist and pro-welfare policies, but in the post-liberalization era, especially in the last two decades, it has increasingly sided with corporate interests and diluted affirmative action measures. Below is an evolution of this shift, along with key cases that illustrate this trend.

I. Early Years: Socialist Leaning and Welfare-Oriented Approach (1950s–1970s)

During this period, the Supreme Court largely upheld state intervention in the economy and supported socialist policies. This was evident in cases such as:

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951) – Initially struck down caste-based reservations, but Parliament responded with the First Amendment to the Constitution, introducing Article 15(4) to enable affirmative action.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – The court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, which was later overturned to uphold welfare-oriented amendments.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Though the court limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it allowed economic policies favoring social justice.

During this phase, the Supreme Court generally supported land reforms, nationalization policies, and welfare schemes.

II. Shift Towards Economic Liberalization (1980s–1990s)

During the tenure of Chief Justices like P.N. Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, the court actively engaged in Public Interest Litigations (PILs), expanding access to justice for marginalized communities. However, as liberalization began in 1991, the court started favoring economic policies aligned with privatization.

Key cases:

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Upheld the Mandal Commission recommendations for OBC reservations but imposed the "50% cap" on reservations, limiting affirmative action.

BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India (2002) – The court ruled that economic policy decisions, such as disinvestment, were beyond judicial review, signaling a pro-privatization stance.

This era saw a gradual retreat from socialist principles, with the court allowing privatization and limiting state intervention in corporate matters.

III. Corporate Dominance and Weakening of Affirmative Action (2000s–Present)

With globalization, the Supreme Court increasingly supported corporate interests while diluting social welfare programs and affirmative action.

1. Pro-Corporate Decisions

Vedanta Sterlite Case (2013, 2019, 2023) – The court allowed Vedanta’s controversial copper plant to continue operations despite environmental violations, showing leniency towards corporate polluters.

Adani Coal Mine Cases (2019–2023) – The Supreme Court upheld government decisions favoring Adani Group in coal mining and port projects, overlooking environmental and displacement concerns.

Vodafone Tax Case (2012) – The court ruled in favor of Vodafone, striking down retrospective taxation, benefiting large corporations at the cost of government revenue.

2. Dilution of Affirmative Action

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) – The Supreme Court ruled against the "creamy layer" in SC/ST reservations, restricting reservation benefits within these communities.

NEET Reservation Cases (2021–2023) – The court has consistently delayed or struck down state-specific affirmative action measures in medical education.

3. Anti-Welfare Rulings

Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) – Diluted the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act by making it difficult to file cases, though later overturned after protests.

Demonetization Case (2023) – The Supreme Court upheld demonetization despite its devastating impact on small businesses and workers, reinforcing government economic policies favoring big players.

Why This Shift?

Judicial Appointments and Collegium Bias – Post-liberalization, judges with pro-corporate and neoliberal inclinations have been increasingly appointed.

Influence of Globalization and Neoliberalism – The judiciary aligns with economic liberalization policies, treating corporate growth as "national interest."

Weakening of PILs and Activism – The judiciary that once expanded rights through PILs has now become more status quo-oriented, limiting social justice interventions.

Judicial Overreach in Economic Policy – While earlier courts protected state welfare schemes, the modern court often upholds economic policies favoring corporate expansion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, once an institution protecting social justice and affirmative action, has steadily shifted towards a pro-corporate stance while diluting social welfare measures. Landmark cases illustrate this transition, showing increasing judicial deference to big businesses and a growing reluctance to uphold progressive social policies. This shift is a reflection of broader economic and political trends in India post-1991.