In the intricate web of India’s constitutional framework, the roles and boundaries of the Supreme Court and Parliament intersect, often leading to thought-provoking questions. One such query that frequently arises is whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the powers vested in Parliament. Let’s delve into this legal labyrinth and explore the delicate balance between these two pillars of democracy.
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers
Before we dive into the specifics, let’s revisit the doctrine of separation of powers. This concept, popularized by French philosopher Montesquieu, emphasizes the need to distribute governmental functions among distinct branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. While the United States strictly adheres to this separation, India adopts a more flexible approach, emphasizing checks and balances.
The Supreme Court’s Role
1. Judicial Review:
The Supreme Court wields the mighty sword of judicial review. This power allows it to scrutinize laws enacted by Parliament and assess their constitutionality. If a law violates fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions, the court can strike it down. This mechanism ensures that Parliament does not overstep its authority and respects the Constitution.
2. Guardian of the Constitution:
The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, acts as the guardian of the Constitution. It interprets the Constitution’s provisions, resolves disputes, and ensures that the government functions within its prescribed limits. When Parliament passes laws, the court evaluates their compatibility with constitutional principles.
3. Balancing Act:
While the court has the power to review legislation, it treads carefully. It recognizes Parliament’s supremacy in lawmaking but also safeguards individual rights. This delicate balancing act ensures that neither institution becomes autocratic. The court’s intervention is not arbitrary; it arises when constitutional norms are at stake.
Instances of Judicial Intervention
1. Basic Structure Doctrine:
In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court introduced the basic structure doctrine. According to this principle, certain fundamental features of the Constitution (such as democracy, secularism, and the rule of law) are beyond Parliament’s reach. If Parliament amends the Constitution in a way that undermines these core features, the court can strike down the amendment.
2. Fundamental Rights Protection:
The court zealously guards fundamental rights. If Parliament enacts a law that infringes upon these rights, citizens can challenge it before the court. The judiciary ensures that individual liberties remain sacrosanct, even in the face of legislative action.
3. Environmental Protection:
In cases related to environmental degradation, the court has stepped in to protect the environment. For instance, in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India case, the court ordered the closure of polluting industries near the Taj Mahal. Such decisions demonstrate the court’s commitment to safeguarding public interest.
The Fine Balance
The Supreme Court’s intervention is not an affront to Parliament’s authority; rather, it upholds the Constitution’s spirit. By striking down unconstitutional laws, the court ensures that the rule of law prevails. However, it exercises restraint, recognizing that Parliament represents the will of the people.
Conclusion
In the grand theater of Indian democracy, the Supreme Court and Parliament perform distinct roles. Their interactions are not adversarial but symbiotic. The court’s intervention is a necessary check, preventing legislative excesses and preserving the constitutional order. As we navigate this intricate dance, we must remember that both institutions serve the same master: the Indian citizen.
In the end, the question isn’t whether the Supreme Court can interfere with Parliament; it’s whether it should. And the answer lies in the delicate balance that sustains our democracy.
