Law and You > Constitutional Law > Constitutionalism in India
Constitutionalism is a broader concept that refers to the adherence to and implementation of constitutional principles. It embodies the idea that government should be conducted according to the rules and principles set forth in the constitution, ensuring that power is exercised within legal and ethical boundaries. It is antithesis or arbitrary power. It puts limitations on the powers of government. It provides checks and balance on executive and legislature. Let us discuss constitutionalism in India.
Constitutionalism in India
Constitutionalism in India is deeply rooted in the country’s democratic values, its respect for the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights. The Indian Constitution, which came into effect on January 26, 1950, is the cornerstone of India’s constitutionalism, outlining the structure of government, the relationship between the state and citizens, and the principles that guide governance.
Constitutionalism through Constitution:
Written Constitution:
India has a detailed and written constitution, which is one of the longest in the world. It serves as the supreme law of the land, providing a clear framework for the functioning of the government, the protection of individual rights, and the distribution of powers between the central and state governments. The written constitution ensures that all laws and government actions conform to constitutional principles, promoting transparency and limiting government authority.
In the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1029 case the Supreme Court said that: “The constitutional functionaries owe a greater degree of responsibility towards this eloquent instrument for it is from this document that they derive their power and authority and, as a natural corollary, they must ensure that they cultivate and develop a spirit of constitutionalism where every action taken by them is governed by and is in strict conformity with the basic tenets of the Constitution”.
Supremacy of the Constitution:
The Constitution of India is the highest law, and any law or action by the government that contravenes it can be declared unconstitutional by the judiciary. This principle establishes that the government is not above the law and must operate within the limits set by the Constitution.
In IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, Appeal (civil) 1344-45 of 1976 case, the Supreme Court of India observed that the principle of constitutionalism is now a legal principle which requires control over the exercise of Governmental power to ensure that it does not destroy the democratic principles and these democratic principles include protection of Fundamental Rights. The principle of constitutionalism is based on the principle of legality which requires the Courts to interpret the legislations on the presumption that the Parliament would not intend to legislate contrary to fundamental rights. The Legislature can restrict fundamental rights but it is impossible for laws protecting fundamental rights to be impliedly repealed by future statutes.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution is supreme, and no individual, including the Prime Minister, is above it. The Court addressed issues related to the validity of elections and held that constitutional principles must be adhered to by all, including those in power. This case underscored that the Constitution is the highest legal authority, and even high-ranking officials must comply with its provisions.
Rule of Law:
The Indian legal system is based on the principle of rule of law, where all individuals, including government officials, are subject to the law. Laws are applied uniformly to all citizens without bias. This ensures fairness, equality, and justice, safeguarding citizens from arbitrary actions by the state.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 case, the Supreme Court of India expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to include the due process of law. The case held that any law affecting personal liberty must not only follow procedural requirements but also be fair, just, and reasonable. This ruling reinforced the rule of law by ensuring that even laws enacted by the government must pass the test of fairness and reasonableness, preventing arbitrary actions by the state.
In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 (Habeas Corpus case) case, where during emergency (1975–1977), the Supreme Court of India controversially held that the right to life and liberty could be suspended, and habeas corpus petitions could not be filed if there was no express legal authority. Though the decision temporarily weakened the rule of law by allowing arbitrary detention, it was later criticized and overturned, emphasizing the importance of judicial protection of fundamental rights. It highlighted the critical role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rule of law.
In IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, Appeal (civil) 1344-45 of 1976 case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (which aimed to protect certain laws from judicial review) would still be subject to judicial scrutiny if they violate fundamental rights. This case reinforced the rule of law by ensuring that even laws placed beyond the scope of judicial review are not immune from constitutional scrutiny if they violate basic human rights.
In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 case, the “basic structure doctrine” established in this case holds that the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution does not extend to altering its basic structure, including fundamental principles such as the rule of law, democracy, and judicial independence. The case entrenched the rule of law as a core principle of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that no government action or amendment can infringe upon this fundamental aspect.
Fundamental Rights:
Part III of the Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, protection against discrimination, the right to life and personal liberty, and the right to constitutional remedies. Fundamental rights are a cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism, protecting citizens from state overreach and providing mechanisms for judicial redress in case of violations. Over time, various landmark judgments have interpreted, expanded, and protected these rights. Here are some of the most significant cases relating to Fundamental Rights:
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). In this case, the Supreme Court took a narrow view of Article 21, holding that the procedure established by law meant any procedure passed by the legislature, even if it was unfair or unjust. The court ruled that the Preventive Detention Act was constitutional. This judgment was criticized for restricting the scope of Article 21 but was later overruled by the Maneka Gandhi case.
In Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Article 15 (Right to Equality). The Supreme Court struck down caste-based reservations in educational institutions, ruling that they violated Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, caste, or religion. This case emphasized the supremacy of Fundamental Rights over the Directive Principles of State Policy. As a result, the First Amendment was introduced, enabling the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.
In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Article 31 (Right to Property). The Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments cannot be challenged under Article 13, which states that laws in contravention of Fundamental Rights are void. The court ruled that Parliament has the power to amend Fundamental Rights. This case affirmed that amendments were not considered “laws” under Article 13 and thus did not violate Fundamental Rights.
In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This case dealt with police surveillance and personal privacy. The Supreme Court held that police surveillance was unconstitutional if it violated personal liberty but denied the recognition of the right to privacy as part of Article 21. However, the minority opinion acknowledged the right to privacy, which became crucial in later judgments like the Puttaswamy case.
In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, the Fundamental Right involved isArticle 13 and amendability of Fundamental Rights. In a reversal of earlier decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. The court held that constitutional amendments are considered “laws” under Article 13, meaning that amendments violating Fundamental Rights would be void. This case temporarily restricted Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights, but the Kesavananda Bharati case later changed this.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Right to Property and amendability of Fundamental Rights. In this historic case, the Supreme Court introduced the basic structure doctrine, ruling that while Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes Fundamental Rights. This judgment struck a balance between Parliament’s power to amend and the protection of individual rights, ensuring that some core principles like judicial review, federalism, and fundamental rights cannot be changed.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, ruling that the “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable. The court overturned the narrow interpretation of A.K. Gopalan, holding that the right to personal liberty encompasses various rights, including the right to travel abroad. This case linked Article 21 with other Fundamental Rights like Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19 (Right to Freedom), establishing that any law infringing personal liberty must pass the test of reasonableness.
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Right to Judicial Review and Balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, which sought to give unrestricted powers to Parliament to amend the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. The court held that judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and any amendment violating this structure would be unconstitutional.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Article 21 (Right to Life). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but held that it should be awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases. The court balanced the right to life with the need for capital punishment in extreme situations, ensuring that due process and fairness are essential in implementing the death penalty.
In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Right to Education (Article 21). The Supreme Court ruled that right to education is implicit in the right to life under Article 21. The judgment held that charging exorbitant fees in educational institutions violates the right to education and denied access to education for the poorer sections of society. This case laid the foundation for the right to education as a Fundamental Right, later affirmed by the Unni Krishnan case.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal Commission Case) case the Fundamental Right involved is Article 16 (Right to Equality of Opportunity in Employment). The Supreme Court upheld the reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under Article 16(4) but placed a cap of 50% on the total reservation quota. The court also held that economic backwardness alone cannot be a criterion for reservations. This case established the validity of affirmative action policies within the framework of Article 16 and defined the scope of “reasonable classification” under the Right to Equality.
In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case the Fundamental Rights involved are Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 14 (Right to Equality). This landmark judgment led to the creation of guidelines to address sexual harassment in the workplace. The Supreme Court recognized that sexual harassment violated a woman’s right to life and right to equality under Articles 21 and 14. The Vishaka Guidelines provided the foundation for subsequent laws, including the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Right to Judicial Review. The Supreme Court ruled that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) could still be subject to judicial review if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. This case emphasized that judicial review is an integral part of the basic structure, ensuring that no law is above the Constitution.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) case, the Fundamental Right involved is Right to Privacy (Article 21). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21. The judgment held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty. The court ruled that any invasion of privacy must satisfy three tests: legality, necessity, and proportionality. This decision has far-reaching implications, particularly regarding government surveillance, data protection, and individual freedoms.
These landmark cases have played a pivotal role in shaping the interpretation of Fundamental Rights in India. The Maneka Gandhi case expanded the scope of Article 21, while the Kesavananda Bharati case introduced the basic structure doctrine to protect Fundamental Rights from being amended. Similarly, cases like Vishaka, Indra Sawhney, and Justice Puttaswamy have contributed significantly to the expansion of the understanding of equality, affirmative action, and privacy rights. Together, these judgments reflect the dynamic and evolving nature of Fundamental Rights within India’s constitutional framework.
Separation of Powers:
The Indian Constitution divides government powers among three branches: the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary. Each branch is given specific powers and responsibilities, ensuring checks and balances. This prevents the concentration of power in any one branch of government and promotes accountability and transparency in governance.
In the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India, AIRONLINE 2018 SC 1029 case, Chief Justice Mishra of the Supreme Court observed that “The essence of constitutionalism is the control of power by its distribution among several state organs or offices in such a way that they are each subjected to reciprocal controls and forced to cooperate in formulating the will of the state.
In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 case, the Supreme Court of India introduced the “basic structure doctrine” stating that certain features of the Constitution, including the separation of powers, cannot be amended by Parliament. The case emphasized that the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, ensuring that no one branch can usurp the powers of another.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, the Supreme Court of India held that the Parliament cannot exercise judicial functions, such as declaring an election void. This case addressed a constitutional amendment that aimed to shield the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny. The ruling reinforced the principle that Parliament cannot take over judicial functions, thereby maintaining the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature.
In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549 case, the Supreme Court of India outlined that while the Constitution does not explicitly mention the separation of powers, the doctrine is inherent in its structure, establishing that the executive derives its authority from the Constitution and must act within the limits set by the law. It reaffirmed that no branch of government can exercise powers beyond what is prescribed by the Constitution.
In SP Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (Judges Transfer Case), 30 December, 1981 case dealt with the independence of the judiciary and the power of the executive to transfer judges. The Supreme Court of India emphasized that the independence of the judiciary is crucial to maintaining the separation of powers. It strengthened judicial independence by curtailing the executive’s discretion in matters related to the judiciary, reinforcing the checks on executive power.
Judicial Review:
The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has the power of judicial review, allowing it to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws or government actions that violate constitutional principles. Judicial review strengthens constitutionalism by ensuring that legislative and executive actions are consistent with the Constitution. Several landmark cases have shaped the scope and significance of judicial review in India:
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case was one of the earliest cases where the scope of judicial review was tested. The Supreme Court ruled that the validity of laws could not be challenged merely because they imposed restrictions on fundamental rights, as long as the procedure prescribed by law was followed. The judgment took a narrow view of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) but laid the groundwork for later cases on judicial review.
In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) case concerned the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, which curtailed the right to property. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, under Article 368. This case supported a limited judicial review of constitutional amendments.
In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier judgment and ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. This case limited Parliament’s amending powers under Article 368, asserting that fundamental rights are beyond the reach of constitutional amendments, which brought judicial review into focus.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, is the most important case in Indian constitutional history regarding judicial review. The Supreme Court introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” holding that while Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. Judicial review itself was declared part of the Constitution’s basic structure, ensuring that courts could review any laws or amendments that violated the Constitution’s core principles.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine, ruling that the amendment passed during the Emergency, which sought to make the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review, was unconstitutional. Judicial review was upheld as an essential feature of the Constitution, further protecting democracy and the rule of law.
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case, the Supreme Court further reinforced the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, which attempted to limit judicial review. The court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and without it, the rule of law would collapse.
In S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987) case, the court reaffirmed the importance of judicial review by holding that tribunals cannot entirely replace the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226. It underscored the role of judicial review in maintaining constitutional order.
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) case, the Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is a part of the Constitution’s basic structure and that tribunals like the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) cannot exclude the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court. The decision emphasized that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is integral to the constitutional framework.
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) case, the Supreme Court dealt with the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, which allowed certain laws to be placed beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) would still be subject to judicial review if they violated fundamental rights or the basic structure of the Constitution.
In Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014) case, the Supreme Court struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act as unconstitutional, reiterating that judicial review and independence of the judiciary are part of the Constitution’s basic structure. It emphasized that tribunals should not undermine the jurisdiction of constitutional courts.
In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) case, the Supreme Court declared the practice of triple talaq (instant divorce) as unconstitutional, using judicial review to strike down religious practices that violate fundamental rights. It reinforced the court’s role in protecting individual rights through judicial review.
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case, the Supreme Court declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Judicial review was crucial in recognizing and expanding the scope of fundamental rights, particularly in the face of state actions that may infringe on personal liberties.
These cases demonstrate the evolving scope of judicial review in India, from initially being limited to procedural matters to later encompassing the review of constitutional amendments and government actions that violate fundamental rights or the Constitution’s basic structure.
Parliamentary Democracy:
India is a parliamentary democracy, where the government is elected by the people and accountable to the legislature. The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are responsible to the Parliament, particularly the Lok Sabha (House of the People). Constitutionalism in India is closely tied to democratic governance, where the will of the people is expressed through regular elections and parliamentary representation. Parliamentary democracy is a cornerstone of India’s political system, and several landmark cases have shaped its understanding and functioning. These cases have defined the role of the Parliament, the balance between the executive and legislative branches, and the protection of democratic principles.
In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955) case, where it is established that India follows the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, where the executive is responsible to the legislature. The Supreme Court held that the executive power in India is coextensive with legislative power, and the executive can take actions as long as it has the support of the legislature.
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, the Supreme Court dealt with the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and laid down the guidelines for its application. The Supreme Court held that the President’s Rule can be imposed only in case of a genuine constitutional breakdown, and it must be subject to judicial review. This ruling reinforced the importance of federalism and parliamentary democracy by protecting democratically elected governments from arbitrary dismissals.
In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) case, the Supreme Court dealt with the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the anti-defection law, which seeks to curb political defections and maintain stability in parliamentary democracy. The judgment recognized the need for party discipline in a parliamentary system but also subjected the Speaker’s decision to judicial review, ensuring checks on arbitrary decisions.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, where the case was a defining moment for parliamentary democracy. The Supreme Court set aside Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s election in 1971 on grounds of electoral malpractice, upholding the principle that no one is above the law. This case reasserted the supremacy of democratic elections and the accountability of elected officials in a parliamentary system.
In Keshav Singh Case (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964) case, where the case arose from a clash between the legislature and the judiciary in Uttar Pradesh. The UP Assembly sentenced Keshav Singh to imprisonment for contempt of the House, but the matter was brought before the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the legislature does not have the absolute power to arrest a citizen for contempt and that judicial review of such decisions is possible. This case emphasized the balance of powers in a parliamentary democracy, ensuring that the legislature’s privileges are subject to the rule of law.
In Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) case, where the case concerned the issue of criminalization in politics, where the petitioner challenged the appointment of ministers with criminal records. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Constitution does not explicitly bar the appointment of such ministers, the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers must act in accordance with constitutional morality and should not appoint individuals who undermine the integrity of parliamentary democracy. The case emphasized the importance of clean governance in a democratic system.
In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of voters to know the background of electoral candidates, including criminal records, assets, and educational qualifications. This judgment strengthened the transparency and accountability in the democratic process, ensuring an informed electorate, which is vital for a healthy parliamentary democracy.
In Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) case, the Supreme Court examined the expulsion of members of Parliament in the wake of the “cash for query” scam. The court held that the Parliament has the power to expel its members for corrupt practices, but such powers are also subject to judicial review. The ruling emphasized the importance of ethical standards within Parliament and that parliamentary privileges cannot be exercised arbitrarily.
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allowed convicted lawmakers to continue in office while appealing their conviction. The court ruled that upon conviction, MPs and MLAs would immediately lose their seats, reinforcing accountability and integrity in the parliamentary system.
In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of criminalization in politics. The Supreme Court directed that special courts be set up to expedite the trial of MPs and MLAs facing criminal charges. The ruling stressed the need for swift judicial processes to protect the integrity of parliamentary democracy by ensuring that individuals with serious criminal allegations do not remain in positions of power for long.
In Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of frequent disruption of legislative proceedings, which affects the smooth functioning of parliamentary democracy. The Supreme Court observed that parliamentary privileges, including the right to regulate its own proceedings, must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional values, ensuring that deliberative processes are not obstructed.
These landmark cases highlight the judiciary’s pivotal role in safeguarding parliamentary democracy in India. By addressing issues of accountability, ethics, transparency, and the separation of powers, the judiciary has ensured that Parliament functions as a true representative of the people’s will, operating within constitutional limits and upholding democratic principles.
Federalism:
India follows a federal system where powers are divided between the central government and state governments. The Constitution clearly delineates the subjects over which each level of government has authority, as laid out in the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. This division of power ensures decentralization and allows states to have autonomy in areas of local importance while maintaining the unity of the nation. Indian federalism is unique, as it balances a strong central government with substantial powers for the states. Several landmark cases have defined and refined the nature and functioning of federalism in India. Here are some of the most significant ones:
In State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962) case, which was one of the first major cases on federalism, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, which allowed the central government to acquire land owned by states. The state of West Bengal argued that this violated the federal structure, but the court ruled that India’s Constitution is quasi-federal, meaning the central government has overriding powers in certain matters. This case emphasized the supremacy of the Union in the federal structure.
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the imposition of President’s Rule (Article 356) in states. The court ruled that the power to impose President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, and the breakdown of constitutional machinery must be genuine. The judgment emphasized that federalism is part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution, meaning it cannot be altered even by constitutional amendments. The case strengthened federalism by curbing the arbitrary use of Article 356 by the Union government.
Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves (1960) case, involved the interpretation of the power of the central government to transfer territories under its control. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of Indian Territory to another country requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368, as it would affect the territorial integrity of the states. This ruling reinforced the need for the involvement of both the Union and the states in matters affecting territorial boundaries, upholding the federal principle.
In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) case the Supreme Court dealt with the election of members to the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), the upper house of Parliament representing the states. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional amendments that abolished the requirement of domicile in the state for Rajya Sabha members, asserting that the amendments did not violate the principle of federalism. While the decision favoured the Union, it reinforced the unique role of Rajya Sabha as a bridge between the Union and the states in the federal structure.
In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) case, the Supreme Court examined whether the central government could dismiss a state government and impose President’s Rule based on political considerations. The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s power under Article 356 must be based on the actual failure of constitutional machinery and not mere political disagreements. This judgment reinforced the need to respect state autonomy and federal principles.
In Re: Kerala Education Bill (1957) case, where the case involved the Kerala government’s education bill, which sought to regulate private educational institutions, and the question of whether the state had exclusive legislative competence in this area. The Supreme Court ruled that education falls within the Concurrent List (List III), meaning both the Union and the states could legislate on the matter. This case highlighted the division of powers between the Union and the states in the legislative domain, a key aspect of federalism.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, the Supreme Court also touched upon federalism in the context of how states could implement their own reservation policies. The Supreme Court allowed states to have a say in determining the extent of reservations within their jurisdiction, thus recognizing the states’ role in addressing local issues within the federal structure.
In State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) case, where the case revolved around the appointment of a commission to inquire into allegations against the Karnataka Chief Minister. The state government contested the Union government’s interference, arguing that it infringed on the state’s autonomy. The Supreme Court upheld the power of the Union to appoint commissions of inquiry, but the judgment was cautious in acknowledging the importance of respecting state autonomy in a federal setup.
In Union of India v. Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. (1983) case, where the case arose out of the central government’s nationalization of the coal industry, and the court had to examine whether this encroached upon state powers. The Supreme Court upheld the nationalization, noting that the Union has superior power under the Constitution to act in the national interest, especially concerning resources of national importance. However, the case reaffirmed that the centralization of powers must be for broader public welfare and not arbitrarily curtail state authority.
In Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala (2014) (Mullaperiyar Dam Case) case, where the case involved a long-standing water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala regarding the safety and operation of the Mullaperiyar Dam. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Tamil Nadu and struck down Kerala’s law that limited the water level in the dam. The court emphasized that inter-state disputes are a federal matter and must be resolved while maintaining the balance between the states’ autonomy and the national interest.
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) case, the Supreme Court dealt with the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, which allowed certain laws to be placed beyond judicial review. The Supreme Court ruled that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) were still subject to judicial review if they violated fundamental rights or the basic structure, which includes federalism. This case underscored the importance of judicial review in maintaining federal principles.
In N. Ramesh v. Union of India (2010) case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of state sovereignty over its finances when Tamil Nadu challenged the central government’s power to control a state cooperative bank. The court ruled that the Union had the power to control such cooperatives when they operate across state boundaries. The decision acknowledged the Union’s financial authority, while also highlighting the importance of cooperation in India’s federal system.
These landmark cases have played a critical role in defining the nature of Indian federalism, balancing the distribution of power between the Union and the states. The S.R. Bommai case stands out for its emphasis on federalism as part of the basic structure of the Constitution, while other cases illustrate the constant negotiation between centralization and state autonomy. Together, they underscore the flexibility and adaptability of Indian federalism, ensuring that it responds to the needs of a diverse and complex nation.
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP):
Part IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles of State Policy, which outline the goals that the state should strive to achieve in terms of social justice, economic welfare, and the promotion of an egalitarian society. Although not legally enforceable, the DPSPs serve as guiding principles for governance, ensuring that constitutionalism in India aims at building a just and equitable society. Several landmark cases have examined the relationship between the DPSPs and Fundamental Rights, as well as the role of DPSPs in shaping social and economic policies. Here are some of the most important cases:
In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951) case, which is one of the earliest cases on the conflict between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. The Madras government had implemented caste-based reservations in educational institutions based on DPSPs. The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights have supremacy over DPSPs. Since Article 15(1) of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds of caste, race, etc., the state’s policy was invalidated. This judgment reinforced the idea that DPSPs cannot override Fundamental Rights.
In Kerala Education Bill Case (1957) case, which involved the constitutionality of Kerala’s education reforms that sought to provide equal access to education. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the DPSPs in shaping state policy. Although the bill faced challenges related to minority rights, the judgment acknowledged the state’s duty to promote education as a part of the DPSPs. The court underlined that while DPSPs are not enforceable, they play an important role in guiding legislation.
In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958) case, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of DPSPs in promoting educational reforms. The court recognized that while Fundamental Rights are enforceable, DPSPs serve as essential guidelines for shaping social and economic legislation. It acknowledged that the state has a duty to implement policies to ensure educational opportunities for all, as directed by DPSPs.
In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. The judgment created tension between the supremacy of Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. However, this was later overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). The court’s ruling at the time reinforced the idea that Fundamental Rights took precedence over DPSPs.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, which established the “basic structure doctrine” and redefined the relationship between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes Fundamental Rights. The judgment, however, struck a balance by stating that DPSPs and Fundamental Rights should be harmonized, implying that they are complementary rather than antagonistic. DPSPs, therefore, became a significant factor in interpreting laws and policies, although they remained non-justiciable.
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case, which reinforced the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs, stating that a harmonious relationship between the two is essential to maintain the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down a part of the 42nd Amendment, which gave precedence to DPSPs over Fundamental Rights. The court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be whittled down by giving DPSPs undue importance and that both are equally essential for good governance.
In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the right to education under Article 21 (Right to Life), reading it in conjunction with Article 45 (a DPSP that directs the state to provide free and compulsory education to children). The court held that the right to education is a Fundamental Right for children up to the age of 14, thus harmonizing a DPSP with a Fundamental Right. This judgment showed how DPSPs can inspire the interpretation of Fundamental Rights.
In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) case, which dealt with the right to education. The Supreme Court ruled that charging exorbitant fees in educational institutions violates the right to education, a Fundamental Right derived from Article 21 and influenced by Article 41 and 45 (DPSPs). This case emphasized the influence of DPSPs on the expansion and interpretation of Fundamental Rights.
In Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) case, which dealt with the constitutionality of reservations in educational institutions. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Article 15(5), enabling the state to provide reservations for socially and educationally backward classes. The court noted that this was in line with the goals set out in the DPSPs, especially Article 46, which promotes the educational and economic interests of weaker sections. This judgment demonstrated the importance of DPSPs in guiding social justice legislation.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur (1989) case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of the DPSPs cannot be enforced through legal actions in courts. In this case, a vendor claimed a right under Article 39(a), which promotes the right to adequate means of livelihood. The court held that DPSPs could not be a basis for legal rights or claims, reinforcing their non-justiciable nature while acknowledging their value as guiding principles for governance.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak Case) case, which established the polluter pays principle and expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to a clean environment, which has roots in Article 48A, a DPSP that mandates the state to protect and improve the environment. This judgment showcased how the court could use DPSPs to strengthen Fundamental Rights.
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2001) case, which dealt with the right to food, derived from Article 21 (Right to Life), influenced by Article 47, a DPSP that directs the state to improve public health and nutrition. The Supreme Court recognized the right to food as an integral part of the right to life and directed the government to implement food distribution programs, thereby using DPSPs to uphold social justice.
The landmark cases on the Directive Principles of State Policy reveal an evolving understanding of the relationship between DPSPs and Fundamental Rights. While initially, Fundamental Rights were given clear precedence, later judgments like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills emphasized the need for harmonizing DPSPs with Fundamental Rights. Courts have also used DPSPs to guide the interpretation of laws, expand the scope of Fundamental Rights, and promote social and economic welfare. Although DPSPs are not enforceable, they remain a critical part of the constitutional framework, influencing judicial decisions and shaping the development of Indian law and policy.
Amendability of the Constitution:
The Indian Constitution is a living document that can be amended to reflect changing societal values and needs. However, amendments must follow a rigorous process outlined in Article 368 of the Constitution. This flexibility allows constitutionalism in India to evolve over time while ensuring that the core principles of the Constitution, such as democracy and fundamental rights, are preserved. Over time, several landmark cases have defined the scope and limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. Here are the most important cases dealing with the amendability of the Constitution:
In the State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India (2018), case, the court said that: “The constitutional functionaries owe a greater degree of responsibility towards this eloquent instrument for it is from this document that they derive their power and authority and, as a natural corollary, they must ensure that they cultivate and develop a spirit of constitutionalism where every action taken by them is governed by and is in strict conformity with the basic tenets of the Constitution”.
In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) case, which was the first case where the Supreme Court considered whether Parliament could amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights. The challenge arose when the First Amendment to the Constitution, which curtailed the right to property, was contested. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The court held that an amendment under Article 368 is not a “law” under Article 13, which prohibits laws infringing Fundamental Rights.
In Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) case, which reaffirmed the decision in Shankari Prasad. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventeenth Amendment, which introduced changes to land reform laws and protected them from judicial review under the Ninth Schedule. The court reiterated that Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, under Article 368.
In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967) case, reversing the earlier judgments in Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights. The court held that Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable and cannot be amended by Parliament. The majority opinion treated constitutional amendments as “laws” under Article 13 and thus subject to judicial scrutiny if they violated Fundamental Rights. This case introduced limits on Parliament’s amendatory powers and set the stage for future conflicts over constitutional amendments.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, which is perhaps the most important case in Indian constitutional law regarding the amendability of the Constitution. The Supreme Court overruled Golak Nath and held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, these powers are not unlimited. The court introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” which means that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in such a way as to destroy or alter its basic structure. This doctrine created a balance between Parliament’s amendatory powers and judicial oversight, ensuring that certain fundamental features of the Constitution—such as democracy, secularism, and federalism—remain inviolable. The elements of basic structure of Constitution are supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law, judicial review, separation of powers, secular character of the Constitution, federalism, free and fair elections and the independence of the judiciary.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, the Supreme Court applied the basic structure doctrine for the first time after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. The case involved the constitutionality of the 39th Amendment, which sought to place the election of the Prime Minister and other high officials beyond judicial scrutiny. The court ruled that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution because it undermined the principle of free and fair elections, a core component of Indian democracy. The amendment was struck down, reinforcing the applicability of the basic structure doctrine.
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) case, which further strengthened the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court struck down sections of the 42nd Amendment, which had attempted to give unrestricted amending powers to Parliament and limited the power of judicial review. The court ruled that judicial review and the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles are part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and any amendment seeking to destroy or damage this balance would be unconstitutional. The judgment reaffirmed that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not absolute.
In Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) case, the Supreme Court applied the basic structure doctrine retrospectively. The court ruled that constitutional amendments made before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) would not be challenged on the grounds of violating the basic structure. However, any amendment made after the Kesavananda decision would be subject to scrutiny under the basic structure doctrine. This clarified the scope and applicability of the doctrine in future amendments.
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) case, which dealt with the validity of the 42nd Amendment, which sought to oust the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court in matters relating to service disputes by creating tribunals. The Supreme Court held that judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and struck down the relevant provisions of the amendment that sought to dilute this principle. This case reiterated that judicial review is an essential feature of Indian constitutionalism.
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) case, which examined whether laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (which protects certain laws from judicial review) after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment could be challenged if they violate Fundamental Rights or the basic structure. The Supreme Court held that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda judgment), can still be scrutinized by the judiciary to ensure it does not violate the basic structure. This case reinforced the court’s power of judicial review over constitutional amendments, even in the Ninth Schedule.
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, which was primarily about the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule), the S.R. Bommai case also addressed the nature of the basic structure doctrine. The Supreme Court held that federalism and secularism are essential parts of the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment underscored that the Union government cannot misuse its powers to dismiss state governments and impose President’s Rule arbitrarily, as that would violate the federal structure, which is a key component of the basic structure.
In Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020) case, which examined the constitutionality of certain provisions related to the creation and functioning of tribunals. The Supreme Court held that independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure, and amendments that undermine judicial independence by compromising the functioning of tribunals would be unconstitutional. This case reaffirmed the enduring relevance of the basic structure doctrine.
The evolution of case law on the amendability of the Constitution, especially through the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati, ensures that Parliament’s powers to amend the Constitution are subject to certain limits. While Parliament has broad powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure. Cases like Minerva Mills, Indira Gandhi, and I.R. Coelho have played crucial roles in defining and protecting the core principles that make up the Constitution’s basic structure, ensuring that India’s constitutional democracy remains strong and balanced.
Constitutionalism in India through Judicial Interpretation
Judicial interpretation plays a pivotal role in shaping and safeguarding constitutionalism in India. Through landmark rulings, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has not only interpreted but also expanded the meaning of the Constitution, often adapting it to evolving social, political, and economic realities. The judiciary’s role in interpreting constitutional provisions ensures the protection of fundamental rights, the preservation of the Constitution’s basic structure, and the balance of powers among the various branches of government. Below are some examples of constitutionalism in India as interpreted by the judiciary.
Basic Structure Doctrine:
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1467 case, the Supreme Court introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” which holds that while the Constitution can be amended under Article 368, certain essential features, such as the rule of law, the separation of powers, judicial independence, and democracy, cannot be altered or destroyed. This doctrine is a cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism as it prevents the Parliament from undermining the fundamental framework of the Constitution, thus preserving the core principles of democracy and limiting arbitrary legislative power. It established that constitutional amendments cannot violate the essence of the Constitution, ensuring its core values remain intact, even as the document adapts over time.
Judicial Review:
In Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) (U.S. precedent), followed in Indian cases like A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 and Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 upheld the principle of judicial review, the main element of constitutionalism. Judicial review allows the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive actions. It empowers the courts to declare laws or actions invalid if they contravene the Constitution. The power of judicial review is a vital tool for enforcing constitutionalism in India, ensuring that the government operates within constitutional limits. It strengthens the system of checks and balances, allowing the judiciary to act as a guardian of the Constitution and a protector of individual rights.
Right to Privacy:
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841 case, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This landmark judgment expanded the scope of individual liberty in India and demonstrated the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution in line with contemporary human rights standards.
Right to Education:
In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 AIR 2178 case, the Supreme Court recognized education as a fundamental right under Article 21, which led to the enactment of the Right to Education Act in 2009. These judgments show how judicial interpretation can evolve the Constitution to meet new social challenges, thereby reinforcing constitutionalism through the protection of expanding individual rights.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 30 December, 1981, case, the judiciary in India expanded access to justice through the liberalization of the concept of locus standi, allowing public interest litigation (PIL) to be filed on behalf of disadvantaged or marginalized groups. PIL allows the courts to address social and public concerns that affect a broad section of society, often related to environmental protection, human rights, and government accountability. By broadening judicial access, PIL promotes accountability and the enforcement of constitutional rights, making the judiciary a critical instrument in ensuring that the principles of constitutionalism are upheld.
Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights Balance:
In Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 case, the Supreme Court balanced the relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV). It held that the Indian Parliament could not amend the Constitution in a manner that undermines the fundamental rights, reaffirming that both parts are integral to the governance of the country. The judgment clarified that while Directive Principles are important for promoting social welfare and justice, they cannot override the Fundamental Rights. This case reinforced the idea that constitutionalism requires both individual rights and state obligations to be harmonized, ensuring the government’s pursuit of social welfare remains within the bounds of the Constitution.
Freedom of Speech and Expression:
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which allowed for the arrest of individuals for offensive online content, on the grounds that it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The case reinforced the importance of freedom of speech in a democracy and curbed the misuse of laws to suppress dissent. By protecting free speech from arbitrary state action, the judiciary has upheld one of the core tenets of constitutionalism—the safeguarding of individual freedoms from government overreach.
Right to Life with Dignity:
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 case, the Supreme Court broadened the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life) to include not just physical existence but also the right to live with dignity, liberty, and access to a fair procedure. This judgment shifted the focus from a narrow interpretation of the right to life to one that includes personal liberty and human dignity, setting a precedent for many future rulings. The case emphasized that constitutional rights are not static but dynamic, capable of expanding to ensure justice, liberty, and equality for all citizens in a changing society.
Secularism and Religious Rights:
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918 case, the Supreme Court ruled that secularism is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. Any attempt to undermine it, whether through executive action or legislative amendments, would be unconstitutional. The judgment reinforced India’s commitment to secularism, one of the core values enshrined in the Constitution, and upheld the balance between religious freedoms and the secular nature of the state. This case underscored the judiciary’s role in preserving the secular fabric of the nation, ensuring that the state remains neutral in matters of religion, a key aspect of constitutionalism in a pluralistic society like India.
Affirmative Action and Equality:
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs and education, but it placed a 50% limit on reservations and excluded the “creamy layer” (economically advanced sections) from benefiting from them. This judgment clarified the scope of affirmative action in India, ensuring that it promotes equality without being discriminatory. The case demonstrated the judiciary’s role in balancing social justice measures with the constitutional guarantee of equality, shaping the way affirmative action is implemented in India.
Environmental Constitutionalism:
In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India case, the judiciary has interpreted the right to life under Article 21 to include the right to a healthy environment. The courts have taken proactive stances on environmental protection, often through PILs. This expansion of constitutional rights reflects the growing importance of environmental concerns in constitutionalism, making the state accountable for environmental degradation. Environmental jurisprudence in India showcases the judiciary’s role in ensuring sustainable development and enforcing government accountability in protecting natural resources and public health.
Uniform Civil Code:
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 2662 case, the Supreme Court ruled that a marriage would be considered void if a man entered into a second marriage without first divorcing his first wife, who is still alive. The court also held that if a man converted to Islam and then entered into a second marriage following Islamic practices, that marriage would also be considered void. The first marriage must be dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act for the second marriage to be valid. If a man fails to do so, he can be held liable under Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of bigamy.
Judicial interpretation in India has been instrumental in strengthening and advancing the principles of constitutionalism. By protecting fundamental rights, checking government overreach, balancing state interests with individual liberties, and adapting the Constitution to meet contemporary needs, the judiciary has played a vital role in preserving India’s democratic values. Through its dynamic and evolving interpretations, the judiciary ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, responsive to the needs of its people while safeguarding its core principles.
Challenges to Constitutionalism in India
Constitutionalism in India, while robust in many ways, faces several challenges that threaten the ideals of democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights. These challenges come from a variety of sources, including political overreach, institutional weaknesses, and socio-economic factors. Below are the major challenges to constitutionalism in India:
- Executive Overreach: The concentration of power in the executive branch of government often undermines the balance of powers envisioned in the Constitution. This overreach can occur through the use of ordinances, bypassing Parliament, or undermining institutional checks and balances. Executive overreach threatens the principle of separation of powers and undermines the system of checks and balances crucial to constitutionalism. Examples are the frequent use of ordinances to pass laws without parliamentary debate (Article 123 of the Constitution), or efforts by the executive to influence independent institutions like the Election Commission, the judiciary, or investigative agencies.
- Judicial Independence and Accountability: The judiciary plays a critical role in upholding constitutionalism, but it faces challenges in maintaining its independence and accountability. Delays in appointments, vacancies in courts, political interference in judicial appointments, and corruption allegations have at times weakened the judiciary’s independence. Any erosion of judicial independence can undermine the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on the legislature and executive, threatening constitutionalism. For example, delays in the appointment of judges, especially in higher courts, have led to concerns about the backlog of cases and inefficiency. The tension between the executive and judiciary over the appointment of judges through the collegium system versus a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) also reflects challenges to judicial independence.
- Weakening of Democratic Institutions: The undermining of democratic institutions, such as Parliament and state legislatures, through reduced debate, hurried legislation, and weakening of parliamentary oversight mechanisms, can erode constitutionalism. Weak democratic institutions reduce accountability and transparency, limiting the role of representative democracy in governance and diminishing constitutional safeguards against authoritarianism. For example, the passage of significant laws without sufficient parliamentary debate (e.g., farm laws in 2020), the increasing use of ordinances, and the weakening role of parliamentary committees.
- Majoritarianism and Threats to Secularism: India’s Constitution is based on the principle of secularism, but the rise of majoritarianism, where the interests of the majority community are placed above those of minority groups, threatens the constitutional guarantee of equality and religious freedom. Majoritarianism undermines the secular fabric of the Constitution and poses a serious threat to the protection of minority rights, fostering social divisions and eroding constitutional principles of equality and justice. For example, communal violence, attempts to pass laws that target religious minorities (e.g., anti-conversion laws), and the increasing use of religious symbolism in politics.
- Delay and Backlog in Judiciary: The Indian judiciary, particularly at the lower court levels, is plagued by a massive backlog of cases, resulting in delays in the delivery of justice. The slow pace of litigation undermines the right to speedy justice guaranteed by the Constitution. As of recent reports, over 40 million cases are pending in Indian courts. Judicial delays erode public trust in the justice system, deny citizens timely relief, and weaken the enforcement of fundamental rights, thus challenging constitutionalism.
- Erosion of Fundamental Rights: There are concerns about the erosion of fundamental rights, particularly in the areas of freedom of speech, assembly, and expression. Increasing instances of censorship, criminal defamation cases, and the misuse of sedition laws and anti-terror legislation (e.g., the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, UAPA) have raised alarm. The curtailment of fundamental rights weakens the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty, and the misuse of laws to stifle dissent poses a serious threat to democratic governance. For example, the increasing use of sedition laws (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code) and UAPA to suppress dissent, clamp down on protests, and target political opponents, journalists, and activists.
- Political Interference in Independent Institutions: Independent institutions such as the Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are essential to maintaining constitutional accountability. However, political interference in their functioning has raised concerns about their independence. The erosion of institutional autonomy threatens the system of checks and balances and undermines public confidence in these institutions, weakening the broader framework of constitutionalism. For example, allegations of political bias in the Election Commission’s handling of elections, or the politicization of the CBI, often referred to as a “caged parrot” due to perceived executive control.
- Corruption and Governance Issues: Corruption within the political and bureaucratic systems hampers the enforcement of constitutional values like equality, justice, and fairness. Widespread corruption undermines good governance, reduces trust in public institutions, and perpetuates inequality. Corruption weakens the rule of law and erodes the efficacy of institutions meant to uphold constitutional values, thereby challenging the integrity of the constitutional framework. For example, scandals such as the 2G spectrum case, coal allocation case, or reports of bribery and favouritism in public procurement processes.
- State’s Use of Emergency Powers and National Security Laws: The Indian state’s use of emergency powers and national security laws, particularly in the context of internal security or public order, can sometimes undermine civil liberties. Laws like the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA) in Jammu & Kashmir have been criticized for human rights abuses and lack of accountability. The unchecked use of emergency powers and national security laws threatens the balance between state security and individual rights, often leading to human rights violations and undermining constitutional safeguards. For example, the prolonged imposition of AFSPA in states like Jammu & Kashmir and parts of the Northeast, allowing security forces broad powers with little judicial oversight.
- Social and Economic Inequality: Persistent social and economic inequalities pose a serious challenge to constitutionalism. While the Constitution envisions equality of opportunity and affirmative action for disadvantaged groups (like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes), the reality of widespread poverty, caste-based discrimination, and gender inequality often contradicts these ideals. Social and economic disparities undermine the constitutional promise of equality and justice for all, making it difficult to achieve the full realization of constitutionalism in practice. For example, continued caste-based discrimination, high levels of poverty, lack of access to quality education and healthcare, and underrepresentation of women and marginalized communities in positions of power.
- Criminalization of Politics: The increasing involvement of individuals with criminal backgrounds in politics poses a threat to constitutional governance. Legislators with criminal records compromise the integrity of legislative bodies and hinder the enactment of laws that uphold constitutional values. The criminalization of politics erodes public trust in democratic institutions and weakens the rule of law, which are essential to maintaining constitutionalism. For example, a significant percentage of Indian MPs and MLAs face serious criminal charges, including corruption, murder, and sexual assault.
Constitutionalism in India, while deeply embedded in its democratic and legal frameworks, is facing serious challenges that threaten the balance between state power and individual rights, the functioning of institutions, and the protection of fundamental freedoms. Overcoming these challenges requires not only judicial vigilance but also greater political accountability, public awareness, and a commitment to uphold the spirit of the Constitution in both letter and practice. Ensuring that the Constitution remains a living document, responsive to the needs of all citizens, is essential for preserving India’s constitutionalism.
Conclusion:
Constitutionalism in India represents the balance between authority and liberty, where the Constitution serves as the supreme law of the land. It ensures that government power is exercised within limits and is accountable to the people. This concept embodies the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial review, and fundamental rights to protect individual freedoms. The Indian Constitution, which came into effect in 1950, is a living document that aims to reflect the aspirations of a diverse population. It establishes a democratic system with checks and balances, ensuring that no branch of government—executive, legislative, or judiciary—becomes too powerful. Moreover, the Constitution is flexible, allowing amendments to address changing societal needs, yet it also safeguards its basic structure, as established by landmark judgments like the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Over the years, the judiciary has played a crucial role in upholding constitutional values, particularly through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and activism, which have expanded access to justice and strengthened the protection of rights.
In conclusion, constitutionalism in India stands as a framework that not only limits state power but also upholds the principles of justice, equality, and freedom. It ensures that democracy is both representative and participatory, fostering a legal and political system that respects the rights of its citizens while promoting social justice and the common good.