The pillars of a civilized society are strengthened by its ability to bring peace, harmony, and justice to its inhabitants. In order to ensure the sustainability of aspects of peace, harmony, and justice, a society has to operate according to certain rules and regulations, which may be broadly termed the constitutional framework.” The interlinked performance of the various institutions of a society is also equally significant in order to enable a civilised society to fulfil all its responsibilities as desired by its citizens. On the contrary, the absence of a supreme instrument to govern and regulate society can slowly push it into disorder and disruption.
Considered to be the world’s largest democratic country, India, post-independence has opted for the parliamentary form of government. It’s the electoral process that is held every 5 years that somewhat upholds the concept of democracy in India. In the case of India, the Constitution of India is considered to be the supreme instrument that governs and regulates the society and the institutions, more commonly known as the ‘3 independent pillars of democracy, i.e., the legislative, executive, and judiciary, which perform in an interlinked manner to ensure that law and order go hand in hand in terms of the functioning of the society. However, the institutions, or the three pillars of democracy, cannot contravene or contradict the provisions of the constitution in terms of their functioning.
In India, the parliament is considered to be the foremost authority when one confabulates about enactment of new legislatures or amendment of existing legislatures. The Constitution of India also provides power to the Parliament of India to amend the Constitution under Article 368 by laying down rules and regulations so as to make changes in the fundamental or supreme law of the nation. The power of the parliament to amend the system of law in India has a tremendous impact on the functioning of society. But in order to assure that the system of law brought in by the parliament doesn’t have a perilous impact upon the denizens, the Constitution authorises the Judiciary to interpret the laws and check whether the laws made by the parliament are in accordance with the Constitution of India or not. Conspicuously, if a court finds a statue or an act contravening the provisions of the Constitution of India, it can strike it out or even ask the Parliament to amend certain provisions of that act that are unconstitutional. The Constitution, by granting the power of judicial review to the Judiciary, ensures that the Parliament is also kept under a system of checks and balances. But often it has been observed that the Parliament and the Judiciary get involved in conflict, as the supremacy of the Parliament is challenged by the independence of the Judiciary, which can also be called the ‘Protector of the Constitution’.
While interpreting the laws and regulations made by Parliament, the Judiciary has passed many landmark decisions that have tried to uphold the spirit of the Indian Constitution. In the landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala & Anr., the hon’ble Supreme Court of India said that the Constitution of India can be amended without disturbing the basic structure of the Constitution’. Thus, with this decision, the Judiciary not only showed its independent nature and acted as the protector of the Indian Constitution but also put a check on the power of the Parliament to enact laws or amend the Constitution. As such, even to date, the enactment of a law or amendment to the Constitution can be done without contravening the Constitution or its basic structure. The judiciary has also extended its independence as the ‘Protector of the Constitution’ by passing landmark judgements in the famous Golaknath case and Minerva Mills case. While in the former case, the Supreme Court held that the power of amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution cannot be used to undermine or destroy fundamental safeguards, in the latter, the Supreme Court, via its landmark decision, called certain amendments unconstitutional and, most importantly, stuck down that part that restricted the power of judicial review. In relation to these few cases cited, it has been observed that many a time the opinion of the Parliament and that of the Judiciary in terms of interpreting the supreme law of the nation, i.e., the Constitution, have not gone hand-in-hand. The result of which is the conflict between the Parliament’s sovereignty and the Judiciary’s independent review process via the use of judicial review.
Article 13 of the Constitution further deliberates about declaring such an ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or usage void because it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights. As such, Article 13 of the Constitution expects the state not to make any laws that abridge the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. A critical analysis of this article further puts into perspective the power of the courts to check the constitutionality of an act or an amendment before its provisions are implemented in the country. Further, rulings made by the Judiciary also remain as precedents, which, in the long run, also become a source of new laws to be made or old laws to be amended. All-in-all, the judiciary’s aim is to ensure that no one is above the Constitution, not even the Parliament, and as such, the provisions of the Constitution are to be followed in toto by everyone.
In fact, former CJI Ramana told a joint conference of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts that the judiciary would never intervene in the way of governance if it was in accordance with the law, but he also emphasized the key point that deliberate inaction by the government despite judicial pronouncements is not good for democracy. The address of the former CJI also throws a key insight into the subject matter under consideration; however, if these conflicts can be avoided, then the very famous ‘Lakshmaan Rekha’ concept can be maintained. Conspicuously, the conflict between the Supreme Court Collegium system and the government regarding judicial appointments has also grabbed headlines of late.
However, the denizens of India can be happy about the fact that the system of checks and balances is still being maintained in one way or another, and the judiciary’s timely intervention has ensured the spirit of the Indian Constitution and the soul of democracy are maintained to a greater extent.