In a significant clarification amid ongoing debates over parliamentary supremacy, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the Constitution is supreme, not the Parliament. The Court emphasized that the power of judicial review is a constitutional function assigned to the judiciary, ensuring laws and actions comply with constitutional principles.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar made these observations in an order, directly responding to recent remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar. Dhankhar had criticized the judiciary, accusing it of attempting to become a "super Parliament" by setting timelines for the President and Governors to act on Bills. He further claimed that "Parliament is supreme" and that no authority is above it.
Read also: Supreme Court Urges Centre to Clear Collegium Recommendations to Address High Court Vacancies
Countering these assertions, the Supreme Court firmly stated:
"Each branch of the State in a democracy, be it the legislature, executive, or judiciary, especially in a constitutional democracy, acts within the framework of the Constitution. It is the Constitution that is higher than all of us. The power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution on the judiciary."
The Court clarified that Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution explicitly empower the judiciary with the authority to conduct judicial reviews. This function is part of the system of checks and balances that maintain the separation of powers between the three branches of government.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Grant of Disability Pension to Army Veteran Diagnosed with Schizophrenia
The Court emphasized that the general public is aware of the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution by reviewing the actions of other branches to ensure they align with constitutional principles. The judiciary's decisions are guided by legal principles, not political, religious, or social considerations.
"When citizens approach the court praying for exercise of the power of judicial review, they do so in furtherance of their fundamental and/or legal rights. The court's consideration of such a prayer is the fulfilment of its constitutional duty."
The Court's observations came while dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking suo motu contempt action against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. Dubey had made provocative comments against the judiciary and CJI Sanjiv Khanna, accusing the Supreme Court of being responsible for "civil wars" and "religious conflicts" in the country.
The Supreme Court condemned Dubey’s remarks as "highly irresponsible" and reflecting "ignorance" about the judiciary’s role:
"Highly Irresponsible, Shows Ignorance": Supreme Court Deplores BJP MP Nishikant Dubey's Comments Against Judiciary & CJI.
However, the Court chose not to initiate any action against Dubey, stating that the public’s confidence in the judiciary cannot be shaken by "such absurd comments."
Case Title : Vishal Tiwari vs Union of India
