The Role of Supreme Court as the Guardian of the Constitution

Spread the love

This article has been written by Likitha Sri Meka, a 3rd year student pursuing BBA LLB from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.

Table of Contents

Abstract

The Supreme Court is the protector of the Constitution; ensures fundamental rights are available in the constitution; ensures there’s a check on elements of power among the branches of government; and is a protector for justice. In fact, it is the supreme court which is the highest judicial forum which can exert its judicial review powers to work towards protection of the Constitution by scrutinizing every single piece of legislation, actions of the executive, and every constitutional amendment with an intention to prevent constitutional violations. Article 32 empowers the Court to enforce fundamental rights and it is crucial in keeping and fostering the rule of law and dislike for political meddling.

The article goes on to elaborate the importance of the role the Court played in upholding constitutional values, most importantly on the Basic Structure Doctrine which limits the amending power of Parliament vis-à-vis the Constitution. Landmark cases like Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India have cemented its role in protecting personal liberties and core principles like secularism and democracy. However, it has case backlogs and political pressures which demand judicial reforms to make it efficient and more transparent.
The developing role of the Supreme Court will prove critical in solving new socio-political challenges ahead. Hence, it should continue to function as a bulwark against constitutional violations and adhere to democratic values in the Indian Constitution.

Introduction

India’s Constitution stands at the ultimate law of the land by which the country’s lawmaking in substantive and procedural matters is determined. It forms the matrix of governance, establishes people’s rights, and defines the duties of institutions. On January 26, 1950, the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution following careful drafting. It happens to be one of the world’s most elaborate and the longest constitutions. Now, it is a fact that in the Indian Constitution, values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity are reflected; yet it has been seen how the system continues to adjust itself to accommodate democratic and federal structure which coheres the heterogeneous population. The Indian Constitution which forms the cornerstone of the country’s legal and political structure, guarantees that the rule of law prevails.

This is India’s highest judicial organ and comes under Article 124 of the Constitution of India. They exercise very crucial power to uphold the integrity of the Constitution and protect their freedoms and privileges given to every citizen. Constitutional provisions are interpreted as the sole authority in deciding legal disputes, and the institution plays a crucial role in ensuring that constitutional values are protected. Other than interpreting constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court ensures that the laws and the actions of the government respect constitutional principles by safeguarding rights and setting checks and balances in governance.

The article emphasizes on the function of the Supreme Court, which works in defense of the Indian Constitution, and goes about its exhaustive powers, doctrines of judicial review, and the basic structure doctrine with a view towards safeguarding democracy.That means that it opens up the possibility of raising the question about the depth of attempts undertaken by the Court to preserve the Constitution, and, further, to provide input into the life of the country, not only by adopting resolutions but by decision on concrete matters.

Constitutional Mandate of the Supreme Court

The task assigned to the Supreme Court of India is that it ensures the constitution is not violated and that the rights of the citizens are protected. Article 32 is believed to be the most important provision and makes the mandate possible. It is rather thought of as the heart and soul of the Constitution, as directly the Supreme Court is approached by an individual whose fundamental rights have been violated under this article. Article 32 has been termed “the very soul of the Constitution” by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, also called the Chief Architect of the Constitution. This Article has been bestowed with immense importance for its over-all mode of providing judicial protection to the citizen’s rights. Article 32 thus creates judicial review which is a provision under which the Court can scrutinize the laws or actions of the government for their constitutionality.

The concept of separation of powers between the three departments of the government is ingrained throughout the Indian Constitution. Though they work independently of each other, no one goes over his constitutional limits, the Supreme Court sees to it. The judiciary has power for annulling any law or executive action violating the provision of the constitution. Thus, this system of checks and balance maintained by the Supreme Court maintains the repositioning of the separate branches within the government and sustains the constitutional structure. Importantly, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain is an example demonstrating the fact that the courts are aligned against the overreaches of either the executive or legislature so as to remain true to constitutional provisions.

Another most important characteristic of the Supreme Court, setting it apart as the defender of the Constitution is its independence from other organs of government. While judicial independence is, therefore, vital for the Court to discharge its duties without being influenced by others or undue pressure from outside, such independence is also protected through provisions in the Constitution relating to the appointment, tenure, and retirement of judges. For instance, the collegium system makes possible the safeguarding of judicial autonomy in appointments. The security of tenure, under Article 124, ensures judges cannot be removed too easily and keep them out of the reach of politics and, more importantly, external interference. Thus, this independence lends capability to the Supreme Court to discharge its role on fair ground, ensures more efficiently that the rule of law flourishes in India and democracy is protected.

Judicial Review : Key Tool of Constitutional Protection

Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to review whether certain laws, executive acts, or amendments to the Constitution are constitutionally valid. It is the only mechanism through which the Supreme Court and High Courts of India ensure that all organs of the state function within the constraints laid out by the Constitution. However, the judiciary, as such, has not been specifically mentioned in the Constitution, though the basic principles and provisions can be found in some parts of the Constitution. In this way, then, judicial review ensures the safeguard against legislative and executive overreaching. At the same time, it will continue to be a fact that the Constitution will remain the supreme law of the land.

Indian Constitution offers a rather wide judicial review covering almost all aspects of governance, including laws made by the legislature, executive orders, and constitutional amendments. Such a judicial review applies to ordinary laws to ensure they are not unconstitutional in the way they may infringe upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Similarly, the Court may review actions of the executive to check whether they fall within the limits of legality or run against constitutional rights. The one very important feature of judicial review that grants the power to review constitutional amendments to the judiciary, thus keeping the integrity of the Constitution, is potentially challenging for the courts to implement.

The most fundamental landmark case defining the doctrine of judicial review was Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). It was for the Supreme Court of India to evolve the Basic Structure Doctrine under which it held that although the Parliament has been vested with the amendment power under Article 368, yet the same cannot be exercised so as to amend the Constitution so as to affect the basic structure. This had become a landmark case in Indian constitutional law in the sense that it could put a curb on the power of Parliament, such that no amendment could destroy the very foundations of the Constitution.
The above cases show the importance of judicial review with regard to the protection of the constitution. In this context, the role of the judiciary to ensure that laws, executive actions, and even amendments do not violate the fundamental principles of the Constitution can maintain the supremacy of the Constitution as well as ensure the basic rights of citizens. As such, without such power, the judiciary would fail to function as the watchdog of the Constitution, and the checks and balances which sustain Indian democracy could be upset. Judicial review, therefore, remains an integral part of the Indian constitution assuring the democratic values in that country. No organ of government may overstep its bounds.

Supreme Court as the Protector of Fundamental Rights

The Supreme Court of India is the very guardian of those rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The power the Court exercises to protect that right is the strongest in Article 32, which provides an option for an individual, whose fundamental rights are violated, to bring his case directly before the Supreme Court. Article 32, as Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described it, the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, forms an important instrument for protecting civil liberties with respect to which the Court can issue a variety of writs.

For instance, the writ of habeas corpus ensures that no person is wrongfully detained and that the state should have reasons to detail any person. This writ safeguards Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the right to life and personal liberty. Similarly, the writ of mandamus makes a public authority do a duty it fails to do, thereby making governance accountable. Writs of certiorari and prohibition are applied with the objective that any lower court or tribunal should not act in excess of its jurisdiction. Quo warranto challenges to a person so holding the office of the public. In this respect, the Supreme Court takes care that no fundamental right of the citizen is violated by any action on the part of the state or any institution of the state through these very writs.

The other gigantic contribution of the Supreme Court to the protection of fundamental rights is Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Public Interest Litigation, as its name connotes, is meant to promote interest in public affairs. A landmark judgment of the Supreme Court, unshackling the mind set of society and evolving this method, was D.K Basu v. West Bengal. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the court succeeded in widening the avenue of access to justice by permitting an individual or a group to file a petition on behalf of the marginalised or otherwise relegated sections of society, not necessarily affected by it. A shift towards a liberal interpretation of locus standi made it easier for the court to receive cases related to degradation of environment, human rights violation, and socio-economic issues. PILs proved to be effective in airing public grievances over a wide array of issues, especially those of marginalized communities, which could have otherwise gone unaddressed due to lack of resources or know-how to seek judicial redress.

The most distinguished judgment in this regard, where basic fundamental rights are to be protected, is Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978). The court ruling in this case interpreted Article 21, declaring this as the first time that the right to life and personal liberty shall not be arrested except by a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable. This decision stretched the ambit of personal liberty and mandating due process, as applied to Article 21 was regarded as one of the strongest provisions for civil liberties in the Constitution.

The landmark cases also include Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997. It is a case relating to sexual harassment at work and studied in relation by the Supreme Court. The Court had given guidelines for preventing sexual harassment by holding the right to a safe working environment implicit in Articles 14, 15, and 21.

The Supreme Court, through its judicial activism, has not only protected but also expanded the ambit of the fundamental rights. It interpreted the Constitution in dynamic and changing forms so that the rights came alive as society was changing fast. The role of the court as a protector of the fundamental right is pivotal to protection and preservation of individual freedoms, social justice, and democratic governance in India.

Doctrine of Basic Structure

It was during such a judgment, namely Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), that is considered the landmark judgment of Indian constitutional history where the Basic Structure Doctrine came into force to restrain the Parliament’s amendment authority about the Constitution. Sooner, the absolute authority vested in the Parliament regarding amendment under Article 368 was uncontrolled. However, such power has always had the important limitation imposed by the judgment in Keshavananda Bharati that though Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its “basic structure.” This ensures that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution are immune to even legislative or political modification.

It thus emerged out of the conflict between Parliament and the judiciary in the context of constitutional amendment in the 1960s and 1970s. Earlier decisions like Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) had followed the judiciary’s perception that the amending power of the Parliament is unlimited. However, the Court itself reversed this decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), deciding that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. This conflict was finally settled in Keshavananda Bharati, when a 13 judge bench of the Supreme Court gave what would remain a landmark decision. It was, in that case, clear that the amendment power of parliament was conditioned by the basic structure of the Constitution that could not be destroyed or diluted.

In its various judgments, the Supreme Court has identified the basic structure of the Constitution to contain broad principles that include the rule of law, secularism, democracy, judicial review, separation of powers, and the federal character of the Constitution. This ensures that governance is under the rules of law and not by whims and fancies. The state should maintain equal treatment for all religions. Democracy will allow guarantees that the government is representative of what people will. Judicial review allows the judiciary to review and invalidate laws that would try to violate constitutional provisions so that there is a system of checks and balances set up. The separation of powers prevents the power from concentration in one branch of government and safeguarding the autonomy of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary. The federal structure of the Constitution has distributed power between the central and state governments, thus providing a shield for regional autonomy.

Another landmark case which reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine even further was Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975). In that case, the Supreme Court had declared a constitutional amendment invalid which attempted to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny. The amendment was moved when then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi wanted to set aside a decision by the High Court which had disqualified her from office on grounds of electoral malpractices. This case not only confirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine but instead pointed out the role that judiciary would play in preventing arbitrary amendments that may lead to a breach of the democratic framework of the country.

In short, the Basic Structure Doctrine is the insurance against possible abuse of parliamentary amending power. Through this doctrine, by preventing the dilution of the essential attributes of the Constitution, democracy in India, the rule of law, and secularism will live under it, enabling the spirit of the Constitution to be passed onto future generations.

Supreme Court’s Role in Constitutional Amendments and Interpretation

The Supreme Court of India plays a very crucial role in the interpretation of the Constitution, especially the ambiguities or ‘evolving provisions,’ so the Constitution continues to keep pace with changing socio-political contexts. The Constitution is a living document; the Court’s interpretations update it while presenting it as applicable to new challenges and maintaining its core principles. Interpretations by judgments in a dynamic and purposive manner have expanded the scope of many constitutional provisions. This interpretation has been especially relevant with regard to fundamental rights. In this manner, it has expanded the scope of various articles-in this case, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Constitutional amendments also carry tremendous powers of the Supreme Court. While Article 368 vests exclusive powers of constitutional amendment in Parliament, the role of the Court in the adjudication of amendments has emerged as an important factor to protect the basic structure of the Constitution. The Basic Structure Doctrine came up as the direct result of the seminal judgment of the case in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973. This doctrine limits the amending power of Parliament by declaring that some basic features of the Constitution cannot be amended or destroyed in the name of an amendment. Through such a mechanism, it forms an essential defence layer around the very core values of the Constitution, like democracy, rule of law, and judicial independence.
Therefore, the court’s power over the Ninth Schedule is a constituent element of the review of constitutional amendments. In the original version, laws put under the Ninth Schedule were considered immune from judicial review. However, in I.R. In Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court held that when laws are put in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, in reference to the judgment of the Keshavananda Bharati, the said laws are liable to be reviewed by the judiciary. It was the decision of the Court that any law however it may be placed in the Ninth Schedule can be declared ultra vires if it runs counter to the basic structure of the Constitution. It is in this sense that the judiciary confirmed its position, by ensuring that amendments to the Constitution do not affect basic rights or the basic structure.

It can be very well said that for upholding the integrity and adaptability of the Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court concerning the interpretation and review of amendments has been quite essential. On one hand, the interpretations, keeping a balance between the corresponding parliamentary powers and judicial oversight, ensure respect for the basic structure in the implementation of constitutional amendments. The interpretations also keep the Constitution relevant to an ever-changing society.

The Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter in Federal Disputes

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial authority, which provides an avenue for appeal in disputes between the central government and the states or between two different states, and thus plays a very crucial role in maintaining the balance of the federation in governing the country. As under Article 131 of the Constitution, disputes between two or more states or between a state and the Union are within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, such cases can be brought directly before the Supreme Court without any previous tranching down of the cases at the lower courts. In a federal system such as that of India, such jurisdiction is essential to ensure harmony between levels of the state or avoid deadlocks between them.

Article 131 states that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over any case in which the central government and the state governments are in conflict, or when two or more states have a disagreement concerning some rights, powers, or some legal obligation, constitutionally laid down. Such disputes arise concerning matters such as financial resource distribution, legislative authority, or territorial claims. The decisions rendered by such courts are final because they act as the ultimate arbiter on the issue of federation and maintain the balance of power at the center with the states.

Some of the notable cases in the area are State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977). The action that Karnataka states took was challenging the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356, which empowered the center to dissolve state governments and impose direct rule. The Supreme Court showed concurrence with the President’s Rule, yet it is instrumental in pointing out the role of the central government so that it does not transgress its constitutional limits while dealing with state affairs. It reflected on a need for striking a very careful balance between central authority and state autonomy in the strengthening and realization of the federation of states constituted by the Constitution.

Another landmark case is the one of State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963), wherein the state challenged the authority of central government to acquire the land under the law passed by the central government. The Court held its field by upholding the central government’s right to legislate in matters falling within the Union List but attracted emphasis that this power should not infringe on state rights as was urged by the principle of cooperative federalism.

Such cases portray how the Supreme Court acted as the ultimate protector of federalism, ensuring that the center and states acted according to their constitutional powers. It has ensured that the extent of either institution in the federal form of the Indian Constitution was not destroyed by balance in the distribution of power between center and states-the Court, by impartially settling disputes.

Challenges Faced by the Supreme Court as the Guardian of the Constitution

The Supreme Court of India faces a number of serious challenges which actually impede its functioning. Among all those, the backlog of cases perhaps assumes the most critical form. With millions of cases pending across the Indian judiciary as a whole, the task for the Supreme Court is nothing but an ever-increasing mountain of litigation. Currently, more than 70,000 cases lie pending before the Supreme Court alone. The delivery of justice is thus under extreme delay. Such a backlog will restrict the Court from being able to address the constitutional issues on time and hence stray from its protectorate role. As such, whatever be the cause of the constitutional issues faced by the marginalized sections, delays in justice only fuel their plight further by compromising the rights of the concerned people while waiting for justice.

Yet another challenge posed is political pressures that can threaten judicial independence. It operates under the circumstances of a multifaceted political arena in which opinions from the Supreme Court are attractive to criticism, even hostility from various executive and legislative branches, and pressures must be made to navigate these pressures to continue fulfilling the constitutional mandate for the Court. Political influence, threats against appointments, and judicial decision criticism can make the judicial branch less independent. The Court therefore needs to become more insulated from these influences so as to gain public trust in its impartiality and integrity as the protector of the Constitution.

In the wake of these challenges, judicial reforms focusing on quickening and making judicial process more transparent and efficient are the pressing needs. Improvement can be brought through an increase in the strength of the Supreme Court and High Courts to accelerate the speed of disposal of cases, technology-driven solutions such as e-filing and digital case management systems, and improving legal aid services to achieve the cause of access to justice for all. There is a clear need for clearer guidelines on appointments and transfers of judges to prevent politicization and establish an independent judiciary.

Conclusion

Thus, in a nutshell, the Supreme Court of India plays a very fundamental role as the defender of the Constitution to establish respect for the rights of its citizens, maintain the balance of the power dividing the branches of the government, and act upon justice. It shields fundamental rights through interpretations of the Constitution and plays an important checking role against the two other branches: the executive and the legislature. But exercising its jurisdiction over constitutional matters and resolving disputes between the center and states, the Supreme Court has not only prescribed the federal structure but made governmental authorities accountable to a degree also. Its landmark judgments themselves have played a very pivotal role in shaping the constitutional future of India wherein it held that the Constitution rules supreme and anchored the very notion of the rule of law.

Therefore, judicial independence is important because, in this way, it strongly plays a role in protecting constitutional values. An independent judiciary is essential to ensure freedom of the Supreme Court from influential pressure groups that can be used to wrongfully influence judgments. In such an event, a free Supreme Court can freely operate without its influences being used to distribute justice inequitably and unfairly. When the judicature acts without fear or favor, it will generally inspire public confidence in the system as a whole, encourage adherence to the rule of law, and empower citizens seeking redress for violation of rights. Protecting this integrity for all stakeholders in the governance process is still at the very core of a healthy democracy.

This is the backdrop on which the role of the Supreme Court is going to evolve in the future. As India tackles new challenges – from technological advancements and social movements to an increasingly glaring gap between rich and poor – the Supreme Court has to alter its approaches to face these emerging issues efficiently. The Court needs to be capable and willing to respond promptly on constitutional violations, especially on matters of personal liberty, civil rights, and environmental justice, for the Court to remain a bulwark against constitutional infringement.

The future of the Supreme Court of India, it would continue to be an institution of strategic importance in upholding the Constitution, speaking for justice, and safeguarding citizens’ rights. Its strength, independence, and commitment to constitutional values will mould the Indian democratic journey and become a place where the ideals enshrined in the Constitution and very concretely adhered to and lived by.

Bibliography