Constitutional Political Economy

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 336–359 | Cite as

Parliament vs. Supreme court: a veto player framework of the Indian constitutional experiment in the area of economic and civil rights

Original Paper


This essay is on the Indian constitution and extends and responds to the work of Singh (Constitutional Political Economy 17:17, 2006) in the analysis of economic rights. The veto player framework is used to analyze the development of economic rights which was diminished and civil rights (through Public Interest Litigation) which was expanded since Indian independence. The Congleton Model (Constitutional Political Economy 12:193–215, 2001) and Tsebelis Model (British Journal of Political Science 25(3):298–325, 1995) on veto players are used to develop the hypotheses and analyze the evolution of the Indian constitution.


Indian constitution Property rights Civil rights Basic structure doctrine Public interest litigation Veto bargaining model Veto player framework Supreme Court Parliament 

JEL Classification

D-74 K-11 K-40 



The author thanks Charles Rowley, Richard Wagner, Todd Zywicki, and three anonymous referees for helpful advice on earlier versions of the paper. Further, thanks to Roger Congleton for initially encouraging me to work on this topic.


  1. Alchian, A. A. (2008). Property rights. In The concise encyclopedia of economics. Library of Economics and Liberty.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, G. (1966). The Indian constitution: Cornerstone of a nation. London: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, G. (1999). Working a democratic constitution: The Indian experience. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, C. M. (2000). Veto bargaining: Presidents and the politics of negative power. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cassels, J. (1989). Judicial activism and public interest litigation in India: Attempting the impossible? The American Journal of Comparative Law, 37(3), 495–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Congleton, R. D. (2001). On the durability of king and council: The continuum between dictatorship and democracy. Constitutional Political Economy, 12, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cran, W. (2002). The agony of reform. In Commanding heights: The battle for the world economy. Pp. 120 mins. USA.Google Scholar
  8. Dembowski, H. (2001). Taking the state to court–public interest litigation and the public sphere in Metropolitan India. Asia House: E-Book.Google Scholar
  9. Desai, A. H., & Muralidhar, S. (2000). Public interest litigation: Potential and problems. In B. N. Kirpal, A. H. Desai, G. Subramanium, & R. Dhavan (Eds.), Supreme but not infallible—essays in honour of the Supreme Court of India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. DeSoto, H. (2003). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, R. A. (1985). Takings: Private property and the power of eminent domain. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. George, J. V. (2005). Social change and public interest litigation in India. Web:
  13. Kripalani, M. (2008). India’s economy hits the wall. In Business Week.Google Scholar
  14. Kurland, P. B., & Ralph L. (eds.) (1987). (online version) The founders’ constitution. University of Chicago Press & Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  15. Macey, J. R. (1992). Some causes and consequences of the bifurcated treatment of economic rights and “other” rights under the United States constitution. Social Philosophy and Policy, 9(1), 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pelinka, A. (2003). Democracy Indian style: Subhas Chandra Bose and the creation of India’s political culture. (R. Schell, Trans.). New Brunswick (USA): Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Pylee, M. V. (2004). Constitutional government in India. New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.Google Scholar
  18. Ravi, N. (2005). Can judicial ascendancy be rolled back? In The Hindu.Google Scholar
  19. Salian, S. (2002). History of the removal of the fundamental right to property. Center for Civil Society Working Paper No. 0041:232–255.Google Scholar
  20. Sathe, S. P. (2002). Judicial activism in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Shavell, S. (2004). Foundations of economic analysis of law. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Singh, J. (2006). Separation of powers and the erosion of the ‘right to property’ in India. Constitutional Political Economy, 17, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Siwach, J. R. (1985). Dynamics of Indian government and politics. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Tsebelis, G. (1995). Decision making in political systems: Veto players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism. British Journal of Political Science, 25(3), 298–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weiner, M. (1971). The 1971 elections and the Indian Party System Asian Survey 11(12):The 1971 Indian Parliamentary Elections: A Symposium 1153–1166.Google Scholar

Websites used:

  1. Newspaper:
  2. Official website of Supreme Court of India:
  3. Online Encyclopedia:

Supreme court cases:

  1. Anil Yadav & Ors. v. The State of Bihar, and Anr., (1982) 3 S.C.R. 533.Google Scholar
  2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 2 S.C.R. 67.Google Scholar
  3. Charan Lal Sahu Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors., (1989) 2 S.C.R. Supl. 597.Google Scholar
  4. Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., (1981) 2 S.C.R. 516.Google Scholar
  5. His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.Google Scholar
  6. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, (1979) 3 S.C.R. 169.Google Scholar
  7. I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs, (1967) 2 S.C.R. 762.Google Scholar
  8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1037.Google Scholar
  9. Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., (1980) 1 S.C.R. 206.Google Scholar
  10. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardhichand & Ors., (1981) 1 S.C.R. 97.Google Scholar
  11. Olga Tellis & ORS. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc., (1985) 2 S.C.R. Supl. 51.Google Scholar
  12. Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 594.Google Scholar
  13. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 149.Google Scholar
  14. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 268.Google Scholar
  15. Waman Rao & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors., (1981) 2 S.C.R. 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsAlma CollegeAlmaUSA

Personalised recommendations