How do Supreme Court interventions in exercises like SIR affect the balance between state authority and individual rights?

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance between the powers of the state and the rights of individuals. When the Court intervenes in administrative exercises like the Social Impact Register (SIR), it ensures that state actions do not violate constitutional rights and that the rule of law is upheld.

• Judicial Review: The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear challenges against exercises like SIR demonstrates its power of judicial review. This allows the Court to examine whether government actions are consistent with the Constitution.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: By intervening, the Court can protect fundamental rights such as the right to equality, privacy, and due process. If an administrative exercise infringes on these rights, the Court can strike it down or demand modifications.
• Accountability of State Authorities: Supreme Court intervention ensures that state authorities remain accountable. It prevents misuse or overreach of executive power, compelling the government to justify its actions in the public interest.
• Setting Precedents: The Court’s decisions in such cases set important legal precedents. These guide future administrative actions and help define the limits of state power versus individual rights.
• Public Trust: Judicial scrutiny of administrative exercises like SIR enhances public trust in the legal system. Citizens feel reassured that their rights will be protected against arbitrary state action.
• Balancing Interests: The Supreme Court often weighs the state’s need to maintain order and public welfare against individual freedoms. Its interventions help strike a fair balance, ensuring neither side is unduly compromised.