6.5. Judiciary and Rights

The Constitution provides two ways in which the Supreme Court can remedy the violation of rights.

• First it can restore fundamental rights by issuing writs of Habeas Corpus; mandamus etc. (article 32). The High Courts also have the power to issue such writs (article 226).
• Secondly, the Supreme Court can declare the concerned law as unconstitutional and therefore non-operational (article 13).

This chunk explains the two primary methods the Supreme Court of India uses to protect individuals' rights.

• First, it has the authority to issue specific legal orders called writs, which can help individuals regain their fundamental rights if violated. For instance, a writ of Habeas Corpus can be used to free someone who has been unlawfully detained.
• Secondly, if a law is found to contradict the Constitution, the Supreme Court can declare that law unconstitutional, rendering it no longer valid. This ensures that laws adhere to the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution.

Imagine you have a phone that you rely on to stay connected with friends and family. If someone takes that phone away unlawfully, you would want to get it back immediately. Similarly, the Supreme Court acts like a protective guardian, ensuring that essential rights—like your right to be free—are restored when taken away.

Perhaps the most important power of the Supreme Court is the power of judicial review. Judicial Review means the power of the Supreme Court (or High Courts) to examine the constitutionality of any law if the Court arrives at the conclusion that the law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, such a law is declared as unconstitutional and inapplicable.

Judicial review is the process through which the courts review laws or executive actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution. If a law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the Court has the power to annul it. This process serves as a check on legislative and executive power, ensuring that all actions are in line with the rights of citizens as laid out in the Constitution.

Think of the judiciary as a referee in a football match. If a player breaks a rule (similar to a law contradicting the Constitution), the referee has the authority to blow the whistle and penalize the player (by declaring the law unconstitutional). This keeps the game fair and maintains the integrity of the sport, just like judicial review keeps the law within constitutional boundaries.

Together these two provisions of the Constitution establish the Supreme Court as the protector of fundamental rights of the citizen on the one hand and interpreter of Constitution on the other. The second of the two ways mentioned above involves judicial review.

The combination of issuing writs and the power of judicial review gives the Supreme Court a dual role. It not only protects individual rights but also serves to interpret the Constitution. This interpretation is vital because it helps clarify what rights citizens have and how laws should be applied.

• Writs help individuals when their rights are violated, while judicial review ensures that laws and actions by the government or Parliament do not infringe on those rights.

Imagine a teacher who not only grades students' work (like issuing writs to restore rights) but also makes sure the curriculum is fair and applicable (like judicial review ensuring laws are constitutional). In both cases, there's a combination of protecting student rights and maintaining educational standards.

Together, the writ powers and the review power of the Court make judiciary very powerful. In particular, the review power means that the judiciary can interpret the Constitution and the laws passed by the legislature.

The powers provided by writs and judicial review equip the judiciary with significant authority in the Indian legal system. Judges are empowered to interpret Constitution and those interpretations can affect the application of law, ensuring they align with fundamental rights. The judiciary not only carries out judicial functions but also acts as a guardian of constitutional principles which govern the rights of citizens.

Consider the judiciary as a gardener who not only plants seeds (issues writs) to grow flowers (protect rights) but also prunes overgrown branches (exercises judicial review) to keep the garden healthy and flourishing. Through careful management and oversight, the garden remains a vibrant space for all, just as the judiciary ensures the legal framework nurtures citizens' rights.

The practice of entertaining PILs has further added to the powers of the judiciary in protecting rights of citizens. The practice of public interest litigation (PIL) is becoming more and more acceptable in many other countries.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) allows individuals or groups to file lawsuits on behalf of others who are unable to do so, broadening access to justice for marginalized communities. This trend reflects an expanding understanding that rights are not only individual but can involve broader societal issues. By facilitating legal action for public interest, the judiciary actively engages with issues affecting the larger community and enhances the protection of rights.

Imagine a community member noticing that toxic waste from a factory is harming neighborhood children. Through PIL, this person could bring the issue to court on behalf of all affected families, helping ensure that their collective rights to a safe environment are protected. This example illustrates how PIL empowers citizens to seek justice not only for themselves but for their entire community.

--