How does the Supreme Court’s intervention in criminal cases impact the balance between state and central powers?

The Supreme Court of India, as the apex judicial body, often intervenes in criminal cases to ensure justice and uphold constitutional values. Its interventions, especially in high-profile or sensitive cases, can influence the delicate balance of power between the states and the Centre, as well as shape the federal structure of criminal justice administration.

• Criminal Law as a Concurrent Subject: Criminal law and procedure fall under the Concurrent List (List III) of the Constitution, enabling both the Centre and states to legislate. Supreme Court intervention can sometimes clarify or reinterpret laws, impacting how states exercise their powers.
• Judicial Review and Federal Relations: The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review allows it to scrutinize actions of state agencies (like police or prosecution) in criminal cases. This acts as a check on potential misuse of state power but may also be seen as central oversight over state matters.
• Appeals and Transfer of Cases: The Supreme Court can entertain appeals against High Court judgments or order the transfer of cases from one state to another to ensure fair trial. This can temporarily shift control from state to central judicial authority, affecting state autonomy in criminal justice administration.
• Setting Precedents: Supreme Court judgments in criminal cases become binding precedents for all states. This harmonizes legal interpretation but can also limit states’ flexibility in handling local law and order issues.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court intervenes to protect fundamental rights in criminal proceedings, sometimes directing state authorities to act or refrain from certain actions. This strengthens the Centre’s role as the guardian of constitutional rights across states.
• Impact on Centre-State Relations: While these interventions uphold justice and uniformity, they may sometimes lead to tensions, especially if states perceive judicial directions as encroachment on their domain.