MORE INDIAN SUPREME COURT

The Indian Supreme Court is also involved in a dispute over an Indian version of Viagra:

Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, no drug, except those falling under class 1 to 4 of the Second schedule, could be manufactured, sold or distributed, unless the same was included in the Indian Pharmacopoeia or any other official pharmacopoeia of any other country, the petitioner said.

It requested the Court to direct the Government to give details of permission given for import, manufacture and sale of new drugs in the last ten years so that the ill-effects of such drugs marketed without confirming to standards could be gauged.

What is most startling here for a reader from the U.S. is the expansive power that the Supreme Court apparently has to review the factual record of administrative agency decisions. This kind of fact-finding would be done at lower levels in the judicial system in the U.S. I wonder: does this extra task make the Indian Supreme Court stronger than its U.S. counterpart (because of its ability to demand information from the government), or weaker (because of its wider range of responsibilities and hence lesser ability to specialize in the narrow task of reviewing appellate decisions)? My guess would be that it makes the Court stronger. I have heard it said that the Court has attempted to appeal to a popular constituency by appearing to be less corrupt than the other branches of government; its basis for legitimacy is less the particular blend of technical legal expertise, formidable rhetorical power, and relative public ignorace that seems to make for U.S. Supreme Court legitimacy, and more the fact that the Court stands up for the public interest against the alleged corruption of political classes. Fact-finding power fits quite well with that image.