Abstract
As India marches toward the milestone of becoming a developed nation, the doctrine of Constitutionalism serves as the indispensable anchor for its democratic evolution. Constitutionalism is more than the mere existence of a written document; it is the principle that government authority is derived from and limited by a fundamental body of law. In the current “transition phase” of Indian society, this principle ensures that as the state’s ambitions expand, its power remains checked and accountable.
The essence of this transition lies in the Triadic Balance between the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. While the traditional doctrine of Separation of Powers suggests rigid silos, the Indian experience has evolved toward a system of “checks and balances.” Here, Constitutionalism acts as a “safety valve,” preventing any single organ from overstepping its mandate. For instance, Judicial Activism—often viewed as a point of friction—is frequently the mechanism that breathes life into the Constitution, transforming it from a static text into a living instrument that addresses modern societal demands such as environmental protection and digital privacy.
Furthermore, the pursuit of economic development must be harmonized with the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights. As society shifts, the legal framework must adapt to ensure that “progress” does not come at the cost of individual liberty or federal autonomy. By upholding Constitutional Morality, India can navigate its societal metamorphosis while preserving the foundational identity of its democracy, ensuring that the journey toward a developed status is both inclusive and legally sound.
Keywords: Constitutionalism; Rule of Law; Separation of Powers; Checks and Balances
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Constitution stands as a monumental achievement in global legal history, functioning as the world’s most comprehensive and detailed written charter. As of early 2026, this “Massive Charter” has expanded far beyond its original 1950 framework of 395 Articles, now comprising 25 Parts, 12 Schedules, and approximately 448 Articles.[1] This numerical density is not mere verbosity; it reflects the document’s role as a self-contained legal ecosystem that balances federal complexity with individual liberties. Within this structure, the Constitution serves as the Kelsenian Grundnorm[2]—the ultimate source of validity from which all other laws, including the 106+ Amendments enacted to date, derive their legitimacy. By the start of 2026, the legislative shifts following the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam) have further solidified the document’s commitment to Transformative Constitutionalism, ensuring that the “test of constitutionality” remains a dynamic barrier against arbitrary state action.[3]
This evolving framework ensures that the Constitution is not a static relic but a living instrument capable of navigating the socio-political exigencies of a modernizing India. The supremacy of the Constitution mandates that every executive order, legislative enactment, and judicial decree must align with its foundational spirit[4]. As India transitions toward a developed status, this vast charter provides the requisite legal certainty and procedural rigor to manage complex federal relations and protect the Fundamental Rights of its citizens. The document’s evolution—through both formal amendments and judicial interpretations demonstrates a sophisticated legal resilience, where the “skeleton” of the text is perpetually animated by the “spirit” of Constitutionalism, thereby maintaining an equilibrium between tradition and progress.
In contemporary Indian jurisprudence, Constitutionalism functions as a vital “safety valve,” ensuring that the mechanical framework of the Constitution its “skeleton” is animated by a spirit of restraint and accountability.[5] This doctrine mandates a move beyond mere “rule by law” to the substantive Rule of Law, where “limited government” is not just a theoretical constraint but a functional reality. Recent landmark rulings in 2025 have seen the Supreme Court increasingly invoke Constitutional Morality as a primary interpretive tool to check majoritarian impulses, asserting that the soul of the democracy cannot be sacrificed at the altar of legislative numbers. This has shifted the traditional, rigid Separation of Powers into a state of Cooperative Equilibrium. In this modern triadic balance, the Judiciary acts as “Constitutional Archaeologists,” utilizing the Basic Structure Doctrine to protect the unamendable moral core of liberty, equality, and dignity. Simultaneously, the Executive and Legislature are bound by the mandate of Transformative Constitutionalism, ensuring that the “Viksit Bharat” (Developed India) vision is not merely an economic metric but a social one, where progress is inclusive and grounded in equity.
As India cements its status as a global digital powerhouse in 2026, the legal frontier has expanded from the physical “Rule of Law” to the pervasive “Rule of Code.” This evolution has birthed Digital Constitutionalism, a professional discourse focused on shielding the citizenry from the unique vulnerabilities of the 21st century. The expansion of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) now encompasses protections against algorithmic bias, pervasive facial recognition surveillance, and the opacity of “black-box” decision-making in state-led welfare schemes. Current jurisprudence mandates that any state or private infringement on digital autonomy must pass the rigorous Puttaswamy Triple Test[6]: it must be backed by a clear law (Legality), serve a legitimate state aim (Necessity), and be the least intrusive means possible (Proportionality). This digital safeguarding ensures that as the state adopts emerging technologies, the fundamental human rights of the individual remain non-negotiable and justiciable within the virtual sphere.
The stability of the Indian Republic rests upon what has been colloquially yet profoundly described by the Chief Justice as the “Khaat” (Traditional Bed) of Democracy. In this metaphor, the constitutional text provides the sturdy frame, but the viability of the structure depends entirely on its “legs”—the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Free Press. Should any single institution succumb to overreach or decay, the entire democratic edifice begins to tilt, threatening the rights of the governed. Constitutionalism acts as the binding force that keeps these four pillars grounded in the soil of the Rule of Law. [7]As India navigates its transition toward a developed nation, this “living and evolving” philosophy remains the bedrock of society. It ensures that the government remains an instrument of and for the people, acting as a moral and ethical compass that guides the interpretation of the law toward the ultimate goal of justice, fraternity, and enduring democratic respect.[8]
[1] Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, The Constitution of India (as of Jan 2026).
[2] Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (20th edn, Harvard University Press 1945). See also Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
[3] The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023; See also Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, 2023, Part XVI.
[4]Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625 (holding that Parliament cannot use its limited amending power to grant itself unlimited power).
[5]See Presidential Reference on Assent to Bills (2025) INSC (emphasizing that constitutional authorities must act within the spirit of Constitutional Morality regarding legislative timelines).
[6]Supreme Court of India v Union of India (Secularism Case) (2025) INSC (reaffirming secularism and dignity as unalterable basic features).
[7]See In Re: Algorithmic Accountability and Digital Access (May 2025) INSC (declaring the Right to Digital Access as an integral facet of Article 21).
[8]Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1; Reinforced in Data Privacy Ruling (July 2024) regarding state-led welfare digital frameworks