Role of the Supreme Court in Shaping Constitutionalism
The Supreme Court of India, as the apex judicial body, has played a transformative role in shaping constitutionalism by interpreting, safeguarding, and evolving the core principles enshrined in the Constitution. As the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has not only acted as a check on the powers of the executive and legislature but has also advanced the protection of fundamental rights through innovative and dynamic judicial interpretations. Its proactive stance in upholding the constitutional mandate and ensuring justice has made it an indispensable pillar of Indian democracy.[1]
The concept of constitutionalism inherently implies the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. It also mandates that state actions must be within constitutional boundaries, ensuring that power is exercised in a manner that respects the fundamental rights of individuals. The Supreme Court’s role in shaping constitutionalism is evident through its progressive judgments that reflect a pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation, thus enabling the Constitution to adapt to evolving social, economic, and political realities.
Guardian of the Constitution
The Supreme Court has established itself as the guardian and custodian of the Constitution by exercising its power of judicial review, as enshrined under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India. Through this power, the Court ensures that legislative and executive actions do not violate constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. This power of judicial review forms the cornerstone of constitutional governance and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.
The doctrine of judicial review was firmly established in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, where the Supreme Court affirmed its role in protecting fundamental rights from executive encroachment. However, it was the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that redefined the scope of Article 21, establishing that the “right to life and personal liberty” must be interpreted expansively and harmoniously with other fundamental rights. This ruling significantly broadened the understanding of personal liberty and set a precedent for judicial activism in protecting individual rights.
The Court has also been instrumental in expanding the scope of judicial review by emphasizing constitutional morality as a guiding principle. This approach was exemplified in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, where the Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to decriminalize consensual same-sex relations, thereby upholding human dignity and equality. The judgment marked a significant shift from legal formalism to judicial pragmatism, aligning constitutional interpretation with contemporary social norms.
[1] P.P. Rao, Judicial Activism and Indian Democracy, 1st ed. (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co., 2011).