Nope it’s not just power that builds decent stabilizing systems but how people/their culture use that power.
India’s unusual supreme court stabilises it from executive overreach or other risks because its court judges control their own elections and are far more liberal than indian society or its politicians so it tends to use its extra powers to stabilize rather than compromise the system.
I do agree what you said shows the risk of such systems and powerful courts if created in a vacuum without considering who’ll control it.
Pakistan uses those powers to do the exact opposite of what indian courts would ever do. Also it’s also because in pakistan military is an independent political actor that serves its own interest unlike in India where military is toothless and just operates on politicians diktats often literally at times instead of following intent.
Indian courts also cannot execute on its laws or fund its own budgets or laws. So even if it creates laws it only does ones it knows that parliament wouldn’t resist too heavily and will actually enforce it for them to avoid a constitutional crisis . Indian courts are deeply afraid of ruling parties especially if they have more authoritative leanings or are more organised.
In pakistan the military helps courts finance and execute on stuff superseding the parliament which is why it’s a corrupting force.
In India , parliament under union home minister strongly controls over internal security matters and the police forces with prime minister and his cabinet controlling the military.
it’s not because of british court system, british never had such courts nor is it even a republic the british system is more similar to a constitutional monarchy with a powerful parliament.
India is a republic
UK is a democratic constitutional monarchy hence it’s called a kingdom
Pakistan is just run by the military most of the time and by elected leaders some of the time. so it’s a system that oscillates between dictatorship and majoritarian democracy (not a republic)
but yea supreme court cannot depose prime ministers in india. india set its own checks and balances out of pure fear of the consequences of what happened in pakistan. it still doesn’t fully trust its military to this day. out of fear of pakistan’s case and intentionally keeps regional ethnic regiments to avoid the military from ever unifying or working together.
I do agree what you said shows the risk of such systems and powerful courts if created in a vacuum without considering who’ll control it.
Pakistan uses those powers to do the exact opposite of what indian courts would ever do. Also it’s also because in pakistan military is an independent political actor that serves its own interest unlike in India where military is toothless and just operates on politicians diktats often literally at times instead of following intent.
Indian courts also cannot execute on its laws or fund its own budgets or laws. So even if it creates laws it only does ones it knows that parliament wouldn’t resist too heavily and will actually enforce it for them to avoid a constitutional crisis . Indian courts are deeply afraid of ruling parties especially if they have more authoritative leanings or are more organised.
In pakistan the military helps courts finance and execute on stuff superseding the parliament which is why it’s a corrupting force. In India , parliament under union home minister strongly controls over internal security matters and the police forces with prime minister and his cabinet controlling the military.
it’s not because of british court system, british never had such courts nor is it even a republic the british system is more similar to a constitutional monarchy with a powerful parliament.
India is a republic UK is a democratic constitutional monarchy hence it’s called a kingdom Pakistan is just run by the military most of the time and by elected leaders some of the time. so it’s a system that oscillates between dictatorship and majoritarian democracy (not a republic)
but yea supreme court cannot depose prime ministers in india. india set its own checks and balances out of pure fear of the consequences of what happened in pakistan. it still doesn’t fully trust its military to this day. out of fear of pakistan’s case and intentionally keeps regional ethnic regiments to avoid the military from ever unifying or working together.