Guardian of the Constitution
The Indian judiciary holds a revered and crucial position as the guardian of the Constitution, a role that is indispensable in upholding the democratic framework, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring that all organs of the State function within their constitutionally mandated limits. This function, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, has been affirmed through judicial interpretation, constitutional practice, and the evolving role of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The judiciary acts as a watchdog to ensure that no law, action, or executive order violates the constitutional ethos, thereby preserving the supremacy of the Constitution as the grundnorm of the land.
The Conceptual Foundation of the Judiciary as Guardian
The idea that the judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution is rooted in the doctrine of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. The framers of the Indian Constitution, inspired by models such as the United States, envisioned a strong, independent judiciary tasked with defending the fundamental values embedded in the Constitution. Unlike parliamentary supremacy as in the UK, India’s Constitution is supreme, and any law inconsistent with it is declared void.
Articles such as Article 13, which states that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights shall be void, and Article 32, which provides citizens with the right to constitutional remedies, serve as key enablers of this function. In acting as the guardian, the judiciary does not merely interpret the law but evaluates the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
Judicial Review and the Protection of Constitutionalism
One of the most significant tools in the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution is judicial review. Through this process, courts assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. This power is both explicit (as in Article 13) and implicit (developed through jurisprudence). The Supreme Court has consistently used judicial review to strike down unconstitutional laws and policies, thereby preserving constitutional order.
The doctrine was famously articulated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend the Constitution but not alter its basic structure. This judgment consolidated the Court’s role as the ultimate interpreter and protector of constitutional identity. The power of judicial review ensures that transient majorities do not override the permanent values enshrined in the Constitution[1].
Ensuring Federal Balance and Separation of Powers
Another vital aspect of the judiciary’s role as guardian is the maintenance of the federal structure and the doctrine of separation of powers. Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution, and the judiciary ensures that both the Centre and the States function within their respective domains. In disputes involving Centre-State relations, such as allocation of legislative competencies or control over natural resources, the judiciary steps in to resolve conflicts in accordance with constitutional mandates.
For instance, in cases like State of West Bengal v. Union of India, the judiciary clarified the limits of state power concerning the acquisition of property by the Union. Similarly, in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Court curtailed arbitrary use of Article 356 and reasserted the importance of federalism, reinforcing its role as a guardian of constitutional boundaries[2].
[1] Kesavananda Bharati v.State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461, 1470.
[2] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.