Constitutional Framework of Democracy

When the country's eminent jurist, Shri Kapil Sibal, says that in the Indian democratic system, neither the Parliament is supreme nor the Executive is supreme, it is the Constitution which has the supremacy. In the legacy that the framers of the Constitution of India have handed down to us, the functions of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature are so ensured that none of these three interfere in the work of each other, but as far as the judiciary is concerned, it was given the responsibility on the condition that it could warn the rule of the Constitution in the country from anywhere in danger. It goes back to the statement of Mr. Kapil Sibal. Because the Constitution entrusts this responsibility to the Supreme Court, it does not mean that the judiciary should be considered above the Parliament or that the Parliament should be considered above the judiciary. It can be argued that Parliament has the right to make laws, so it is supreme, but at the same time, the Constitution itself gives the Supreme Court the right to make the laws made by the Parliament on the test of the Constitution, but at the same time, the Constitution gives the Parliament the right to review the laws declared invalid by the Supreme Court and amend the Constitution to validate them. Bring it in the form. Therefore, if the Parliament has the right to make constitutional amendments, then the judiciary has the right to make it to the test of the Constitution. This has happened many times in independent India.

First of all, Article 19 of the Constitution, which gives such freedom of expression, prescribes Pt. It happened with the first constitutional amendment brought by Jawaharlal Nehru. The amendment was imposed on the expression of ideas that incite violence under the freedom of expression. This amendment was then challenged in the Supreme Court, which was found to be in conformity with the Constitution and held valid. This was done only in 1951. After this, in 1969-70, when the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi nationalized 14 private banks by issuing an ordinance, the Supreme Court declared it illegal, but Indira ji then implemented her decision by amending the Constitution in the Parliament. The same happened in the case of abolition of privipars of former princely states. Therefore, this proves that both the Supreme Court and the Parliament are supreme in their respective fields, but this happens within the ambit of the Constitution. It is only the Constitution that gives Parliament and the Supreme Court to take precedence. Do the Parliament and the Supreme Court interfere in each other's work by doing so? This is not the case at all because both the institutions worked in accordance with the Constitution within the framework of their respective rights. Therefore, the statement of Vice President Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar that the Supreme Court is becoming a Super Parliament and it cannot give directions to the Parliament is beyond the logical truth.

The Supreme Court has questioned some of the conditions of the Waqf Amendment Bill recently passed by Parliament. On this, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey said that this is creating a situation of religious war or civil war. By doing so, he has tried to impose the responsibility on the Chief Justice of the country, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, by taking his name, it cannot be said to be constitutional because the Supreme Court has functioned within its limits. In fact, it is futile to debate who is the bigger one in the Supreme Court and Parliament because both institutions are doing their work by taking powers from the Constitution. But it is also a fact that no person holding the highest constitutional post is outside the purview of Parliament. Even the President, the custodian of the Constitution, comes under its purview. Parliament simply means the institution of representatives elected by the people of India. It was the people of this country who announced the adoption of the Constitution on January 26, 1950. Therefore, it can be said that in India's democracy, people are supreme. For this reason, it is also called a republic.

The second case is about the Supreme Court disposing of bills sent by the governments to the President within a period of three months. We cannot call it a directive because the President himself is the custodian of the Constitution which has been applied to India. It is also the duty of the President to see the Constitution come into force. This is more or less the work of the Supreme Court. The President can seek the advice of the Supreme Court on any complex legal matter. But this does not uphold the supremacy of the Supreme Court. Rather, it reinforces the President as the custodian of the Constitution. In India, whatever new law the central government makes or amends the old laws, it is implemented only after the assent of the President and if the Supreme Court tightens any law on the test of the Constitution, then it does not give the Supreme Court a sense of being above the President. All this happens because the Constitution allows it, but Supreme Court Justice B.R. Ramachandran is not the only one to do so. Gavai has said that he is being accused of interfering in the domain of the Executive and the Legislature. Their apprehension is not even unfounded because Nishikant Dubey has accused the Chief Justice of breaking all the old limits. The people of the country do not take his statements seriously. Proof of this is his party BJP's washing of hands with his statements. One of the characteristics of the people of India is that their faith in the judiciary is unshakable. This is the reason why India's democracy is the largest in the whole world and the status of India's judiciary is seen at a very high position even abroad. Our forefathers have also arranged for this while framing the Constitution. In the veins of India runs the blood of that emperor Vikramaditya, who used to get away from all kinds of urges as soon as he sat on the chair of justice.