The Guardians of Justice: The Role of India’s Judiciary in Safeguarding Constitutional Rights

Introduction

India, as the world’s largest democracy, operates under a Constitution that serves as the supreme law of the land. At the heart of this Constitution lies a framework designed to protect the fundamental rights of individuals. These rights, enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution, are the cornerstone of India’s democratic ethos. However, the protection of these rights cannot be left solely to the executive and legislature. It is the judiciary that plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the sanctity of these rights is upheld, making the judiciary the ultimate safeguard of the Constitution. Through judicial review, interpretation, and the ability to issue various writs, the judiciary ensures that citizens’ rights are not violated by either the state or non-state actors.

The role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights has been developed through landmark rulings, which have established critical principles regarding the fundamental rights of citizens. This essay explores the role of India’s judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights, its judicial review powers, the significance of judicial activism, and the challenges the judiciary faces in this regard.

1. Constitutional Framework for Safeguarding Rights

India’s Constitution, adopted in 1950, is a blend of rigid and flexible elements, structured to provide an enduring system of governance. Part III of the Constitution, which deals with fundamental rights, guarantees basic human freedoms and provides a protective mechanism to ensure these rights are not infringed. These rights include the right to equality (Article 14), the right to freedom of speech (Article 19), the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), and the right to freedom of religion (Article 25), among others.

While these rights are guaranteed, they are not absolute. The Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions to be imposed on certain rights in the interest of national security, public order, or morality. However, these restrictions are subject to judicial scrutiny. It is the role of the judiciary to interpret these rights and ensure that any limitation on them is in consonance with constitutional principles.

2. The Power of Judicial Review

One of the primary roles of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights is through judicial review. Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative actions, executive orders, and government policies. In India, judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and is implied under Article 13, which declares that any law that is inconsistent with or contravenes the Constitution shall be void.

Judicial review serves as a powerful mechanism to ensure that laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive do not violate fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of India, as the highest court in the country, is the ultimate authority in interpreting the Constitution and adjudicating disputes regarding the violation of constitutional rights. The judiciary acts as a check on the other branches of government, ensuring that they act within their constitutional limits.

The landmark judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) affirmed the basic structure doctrine, which restricts Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution in a way that alters its fundamental features, including the rights enshrined in Part III. This judgment has ensured that even constitutional amendments cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

3. Protection through Writs and PIL (Public Interest Litigation)

Another significant aspect of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights is the ability to issue writs under Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 grants individuals the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court can issue writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto to provide relief to individuals whose rights are being violated.

• Habeas Corpus: This writ ensures that an individual’s right to personal liberty is not violated. It compels the authorities to produce an individual who has been detained or imprisoned unlawfully before the court.
• Mandamus: This writ is issued to compel a public authority to perform its duty when it has failed to do so.
• Certiorari: This writ is used by the judiciary to quash unlawful or unconstitutional actions taken by lower courts or tribunals.
• Prohibition: This writ is issued to prevent inferior courts from acting beyond their jurisdiction.

In addition to these traditional writs, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has emerged as a tool through which the judiciary has further expanded its role in protecting constitutional rights. PIL allows citizens to approach the court not just for personal grievances but also for public welfare issues. It has been instrumental in addressing the concerns of marginalized and disadvantaged communities, environmental issues, and the protection of fundamental rights.

The Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) case, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the rights of pavement dwellers, is a classic example of how PIL can be used to safeguard the rights of vulnerable groups. The court emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and shelter.

4. Judicial Activism and Its Impact

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in interpreting the law and the Constitution, often going beyond the strict letter of the law to uphold justice. Indian judiciary has exhibited a significant degree of judicial activism, particularly in protecting constitutional rights. This activism has led to the broadening of fundamental rights, expanding their scope and applicability.

For example, in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, to include the right to live with dignity. This ruling marked a significant departure from the earlier, narrower interpretation of the right to life, and laid down that any procedure depriving an individual of their rights must be just, fair, and reasonable.

In the Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case, the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, overturning the earlier view that privacy was not protected under the Constitution. This was a landmark judgment in affirming that constitutional rights evolve with time and that the judiciary plays a central role in recognizing and safeguarding rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but are implied by its values.

5. Challenges Faced by the Judiciary

While the judiciary in India has played a commendable role in safeguarding constitutional rights, it faces several challenges in doing so. These challenges include:

• Backlog of Cases: The Indian judicial system is burdened with a massive backlog of cases, which delays justice. The delay in the disposal of cases, especially in matters relating to constitutional rights, can undermine the effectiveness of judicial review.
• Political Influence: While the judiciary is independent, there have been instances where political influence has impacted judicial decisions. The independence of the judiciary is vital for it to function effectively as a check on executive power.
• Access to Justice: Despite PIL, access to justice remains a challenge for many citizens, especially those from marginalized sections of society. Economic barriers and lack of legal awareness often prevent people from seeking judicial remedies for the violation of their rights.
• Judicial Overreach: While judicial activism has had a positive impact, there is a concern about judicial overreach, where the judiciary may intervene in matters that are within the domain of the legislature or executive. Striking a balance between activism and restraint is crucial to maintaining the separation of powers.

6. Conclusion

The judiciary in India plays a crucial role in safeguarding the constitutional rights of citizens. Through judicial review, the power to issue writs, and its role in judicial activism, the Indian judiciary ensures that the government respects and upholds the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The ability of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution and adapt it to changing societal needs has allowed it to address contemporary issues such as the right to privacy and the right to livelihood.

However, the judiciary must continue to face challenges such as backlog, political influence, and access to justice. The ongoing evolution of judicial practices and the need for reforms in the judicial system are necessary to strengthen the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights. As the guardian of justice, the judiciary must remain vigilant, impartial, and proactive in ensuring that the fundamental rights of all citizens are protected, regardless of their social or economic status.