Author : Naina Kanwar Shekhawat, Army Law College, Pune
To The Point
The Supreme Court is democracy’s watchful sentinel—interpreting the Constitution, preventing abuses of power, and safeguarding individual rights so that majority rule never turns into majoritarian tyranny. By judicial review, the Court examines legislation and executive decisions, invalidating those that transgress constitutional boundaries—be it demanding transparency in political donations, as when the Indian Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme to protect Article 19’s right to informationThrough enforcing doctrines such as India’s “basic structure” in Keshavananda Bharati, the Court secures that no government—neither one nor one with legislative supermajorities—may undermine the Constitution’s essential character. It guards marginalised voices and minority rights, ensuring free elections from arbitrary interference and judicially buttressing democratic mandates, for example, requiring floor tests in state legislatures to respect electoral majorities. Above the letter of law, Supreme Courts enliven democracy: by deciding against secret political contributions, protecting individual dignity and freedom, and insisting on open, respectful public debate—lest, without an unbiased, heroic judiciary, democracy would be destitute of both its soul and its bulwark.
Use Legal Jargon :
The Supreme Court acts as the final constitutional watchdog, using judicial review to verify that legislative and executive actions align with the supremacy of the Constitution and the doctrine of basic structure. It examines legislation, executive decrees, and even amendments to the Constitution—invalidating them when they contravene fundamental rights e.g. Articles 13, 21, 32 in India.
With this judicial watchfulness, the Court upholds separation of powers, serving as a check on legislative excess—as evident in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, when it held that Parliament cannot revoke the fundamental character of the Constitution. It protects personal freedoms by issuing such remedies as habeas corpus or mandamus, upholding rights to equality, privacy, freedom of speech, and life with dignity under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Furthermore, the PIL jurisdiction of the Court has humanised the law, allowing the voice of the marginalized to ventilate against systemic injustices—from protecting the environment to custodial violence—hence consolidating the democratic notion of access to justice.
However, judicial power is counter-balanced by constitutional restraint: the Court does not undertake policy-making, respects the turf of elected governments, and enforces its decisions with judicial humility—stepping in only when required to safeguard the rule of law.
In essence, the Supreme Court upholds democracy not merely by legal fiat, but by humanising governance: ensuring that the state treats individuals with dignity, that institutions act within constitutional limits, and that power always remains subordinate to justice.
The Proof :
The Supreme Court serves as the paramount constitutional safeguard—vigilantly preserving democratic institutions through legal precision tempered with human empathy. Its judicial review power, based on historic decisions such as Marbury v. Madison (1803), enables it to strike down legislation or executive actions that overstep constitutional limits—preventing any branch from acting with impunity. The Court promotes democratic ideals by broadening the protection of basic rights. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), it construed Article 21’s “procedure established by law” to encompass reasonableness and fairness in Puttaswamy (2017), it acknowledged privacy as an integral component of human dignity. The dethronement of the anonymous Electoral Bonds Scheme of 2024 reaffirmed its transparency commitment, reiterating the public’s right to know (Article 19) in electoral finance.
By way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court has de-democratised access to justice—redressing systemic injustices such as environmental degradation, custodial violence, and workplace harassment (e.g., Vishakha Guidelines, 1997). Every judgment balances legal principle with human consequence, promoting societal ideals of dignity, equality, and accountability. Its function is not just judicial but deeply human: restraining the abuse of power without being swayed by political tides, protecting minorities, and guaranteeing free elections. As Chief Justice Gavai wisely noted in India recently, the Constitution itself is “above all three democracy wings”—legislature, executive, and judiciary—so that the Supreme Court is the vital guarantor of constitutional ascendancy. In the US, ex-Judge Kennedy has cautioned that democracy collapses when judicial independence is compromised and speech becomes virulent—underscoring the Court’s symbolic as well as functional function.
Finally, the Supreme Court makes democracy more humane—not by exercising policy—but by upholding justice without fear or favor, equal rights, and constitutionalism—strengthening not only the rule of law, but the dignity of every individual.
Abstract :
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai reinforced repeatedly (June 25–26, 2025) that only the Constitution holds supremacy, not any governmental organ. All three branches—executive, legislature, judiciary—must operate within constitutional bounds and respect the doctrine of separation of powers.
He complimented the doctrine of basic structure (originating from Kesavananda Bharati) for insulating democracy by averting constitutional decay in the form of uncontrolled amendments. The Supreme Court—led by CJI Gavai—is still upholding constitutional supremacy, reaffirming that all state power needs to be within the ambit of the Constitution. Its watchful supervision over executive timeframes, demolitions, and socio-economic justice reflects a judiciary that vigilantly preserves democratic frameworks with judicious restraint. The Court’s double function—legal arbiter and moral compass—is still at the heart of upholding public confidence and trust and institutional integrity in the democracy of India.Reaffirming the fundamental right to shelter, Gavai attacked “bulldozer justice” as unconstitutional, emphasizing due process and human dignity. Globally, he praised the Constitution’s contribution to socio‑economic upliftment—emphasizing significant steps such as land‑reform safeguards through the First Amendment and positive discrimination provisions for Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
Case Laws
1. Marbury v. Madison (US, 1803)
* Chief Justice/Opinion Writer: Chief Justice John Marshall
* Date: February 24, 1803
* This seminal U.S. case instituted judicial review, allowing the Court to invalidate laws as unconstitutional and solidifying the judiciary as a limit on legislative and executive power—humanizing government by making even cherished laws obey the Constitution
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (India, 1973)
* Chief Justice/Opinion Writer: S.M. Sikri
* Date: April 24, 1973
* By a dramatic 7–6 ruling by the largest-ever bench in history (13 judges), the Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine, circumscribing Parliament’s right to amend fundamental constitutional values such as free elections, separation of powers, and judicial independence—humanizing democracy by inserting structural protections against tyranny.
3.Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (India, 1980)
Chief Justice: Y.V. Chandrachud
* Date: July 31, 1980
* Strengthened the Basic Structure Doctrine by striking down Emergency-era 42nd Amendment provisions. The Court reaffirmed that fundamental rights and judicial review are a given in democracy.
4.A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (India, 1950)
* Judge: Chief Justice Harilal Kania
* Date: May 19, 1950
* Preventive detention under Article 21 was upheld by the Court, with “due process” ruled inapplicable. Later overruled, yet it initiated evolution towards safeguarding individual liberty—illustrating how even initial mistakes could bring about further legal empathy.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has acted for years as a guardian of democracy, interpreting the Constitution with an apt balance of legal technicality and human empathy. By doctrines such as judicial review (instaurated in Marbury v. Madison, 1803) and India’s Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973), the Court prevents either Parliament or the executive from undermining the essence of the Constitution. This safeguards the citizens against executive excesses. Pathbreaking Indian judgments—such as S.R. Bommai (1994), upholding federalism by curtailing abuse of Article 356, and Puttaswamy (2017), holding privacy as an inalienable right—moor democracy in procedural justice as well as human dignity. The Court has further ensured electoral purity through judgments such as Lily Thomas (2013) prohibiting convicted lawmakers, and the EC-appointments verdict assuring an above-politics chief election authority. In addition to strengthening the court and democratic system court, it can introduce institutionalized disclosure in the collegium system—public minutes, selection criteria—to further ensure accountability without undermining independence. Pass a binding Judicial Standards & Accountability Act with enforceable ethical standards, grievance procedures, and monitoring bodies .Expand live-streaming and e‑court services to local courts and beyond constitutional benches, enhancing openness and public faith.Utilize public consultations and empirical evidence to inform judicial reforms—appointments, case administration, digital infrastructure—engaging stakeholders .Strengthen institutions such as a Judicial Complaints Commission and more robust internal disciplinary structures to ensure high professional standards without encroaching upon autonomy.
FAQS
1. Which case ruled that Parliament cannot abolish the Constitution’s “basic structure”?
The landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that although Parliament has sweeping authority to amend the Constitution, it cannot change its very core—the basic structure, encompassing democracy, fundamental rights, and separation of powers. This doctrine is a structural bulwark against authoritarian deviation.
2.How does the Court safeguard elections and democratic processes?
The Court has strongly upheld electoral integrity:
* In State of Goa v. Fouziya Sheikh (2021), it reaffirmed the autonomy of the Election Commission—guaranteeing impartial electoral administration.
* The historic Electoral Bonds Scheme judgment (Feb 2024), presided over by CJI Chandrachud, struck down anonymous corporate donations as a dilution of voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) .
3.How does the Court maintain institutional balance?
By doctrine and cases including:
* S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), holding President’s Rule under Article 356 to be subject to judicial review, to ensure non-federal encroachment.
* Minerva Mills (1980), reaffirming judicial review and basic rights as integral to the basic structure of the Constitution.
* SCARA (2015), upholding the autonomy of the judiciary in the appointment of judges — ensuring separation of powers.
4.Why is an independent judiciary necessary for democracy?
Constitutionally rooted safeguards guarantee judges to act “without fear or favour.” They are:
* Protection of tenure and removal only through impeachment (Art. 124),
* Fixation of salaries in terms of the Consolidated Fund of India,
* Contempt powers and jurisdiction constitutionally guaranteed.
This institutional insulation guarantees impartial adjudication, protects minority interests, and is a bulwark against authoritarian tendencies.
5.Judicial review: what is it and why is it important?
Judicial review refers to the Supreme Court’s power to evaluate the constitutionality of legislation and governmental action. Grounded in Articles 13 and 32 of the Indian Constitution, this device grants the Court the ability to invalidate laws that violate the basic structure of the Constitution or intrude upon fundamental rights. It serves as the judiciary’s watchdog function, preventing power abuse and holding the state to account.
