6.6. Judiciary and Parliament

Apart from taking a very active stand on the matter of rights, the court has been active in seeking to prevent subversion of the Constitution through political practice. Thus, areas that were considered beyond the scope of judicial review such as powers of the President and Governor were brought under the purview of the courts.

This chunk discusses how the judiciary has played a proactive role in ensuring that constitutional values are upheld, particularly when there might be attempts to undermine them. It highlights that the courts have intervened even in areas traditionally considered outside their jurisdiction, like the powers of the President and Governor, to safeguard the Constitution.

Imagine a school where the principal has the ultimate authority to make decisions. However, if the principal starts making unfair rules against the students, the teachers (like the judiciary) may step in to challenge those rules to protect the students' rights. Just as the teachers ensure fairness and adherence to school policies, the judiciary acts to uphold constitutional integrity.

The Indian Constitution is based on a delicate principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances. This means that each organ of the government has a clear area of functioning. Thus, the Parliament is supreme in making laws and amending the Constitution, the executive is supreme in implementing them while the judiciary is supreme in settling disputes and deciding whether the laws that have been made are in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Here, the focus is on the separation of powers among the three branches of government: the legislative (Parliament), the executive, and the judiciary. Each branch has distinct responsibilities that ensure no one branch becomes too powerful. The legislature creates laws, the executive enforces them, and the judiciary interprets and protects the Constitution.

Think of a symphony orchestra where each musician plays a different instrument. If everyone played the same instrument, there would be chaos. Similarly, when each branch of government plays its unique role harmoniously, it creates a balanced system that works effectively for the public's benefit.

Despite such clear cut division of power the conflict between the Parliament and judiciary, and executive and the judiciary has remained a recurrent theme in Indian politics. We have already mentioned the differences that emerged between the Parliament and the judiciary over right to property and the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

This portion highlights ongoing tensions between Parliament and the judiciary, particularly regarding issues like the right to property and the scope of amendments Parliament can make to the Constitution. The judiciary often checks the Parliament's ability to limit fundamental rights, which can lead to confrontations between the two.

Imagine a team where one member wants to change the team rules to benefit only themselves. The team captain (judiciary) must ensure that the rules remain fair for everyone. This clash of interests mirrors the conflict where Parliament tries to adjust rules (laws) while the judiciary ensures fairness and adherence to the Constitution.

In 1973, the Supreme Court gave a decision that has become very important in regulating the relations between the Parliament and the Judiciary since then. This case is famous as the Kesavananda Bharati case. In this case, the Court ruled that there is a basic structure of the Constitution and nobody—not even the Parliament (through amendment)—can violate the basic structure.

The Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark ruling where the Supreme Court established the concept of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, which cannot be altered or destroyed by any amendments made by Parliament. This ruling is crucial because it defines the limits of Parliament's powers concerning constitutional amendments.

Consider a smartphone that has some core functionalities that should never be changed, like making calls or sending texts. If a friend tries to change those fundamental features, it could break the phone. The 'basic structure' concept does the same for the Constitution, protecting its essential elements from being altered.

These issues indicate how delicate the balance between any two organs of the government is and how important it is for each organ of the government in a democracy to respect the authority of others.

This section emphasizes the fragility of the relationship between the different branches of government. For democracy to function effectively, there must be mutual respect for each branch's authority. Continuous conflicts can undermine democratic principles and hinder governance.

Think of a three-legged stool where each leg represents one branch of government. If one leg is too short or not respected, the stool becomes unstable and risks toppling over. Each leg must be equal and sturdy to support the overall structure, just as each government branch must function properly for democracy to thrive.

--