 |
|
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's recent pronouncements regarding the supremacy of Parliament have ignited a significant debate about the balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the Indian government. His remarks, particularly his reference to Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces,” have drawn sharp criticism and prompted a re-examination of the constitutional framework that defines the roles and responsibilities of each institution. Dhankhar's insistence that Parliament is supreme, a claim he reiterated despite facing widespread opposition, stands in stark contrast to the established understanding that the Constitution itself holds ultimate authority. This assertion raises fundamental questions about the interpretation of the Constitution, the limits of parliamentary power, and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law. The controversy highlights the inherent tensions within a democratic system designed to ensure checks and balances, preventing any single branch from becoming too dominant. Dhankhar's invocation of the 1975 Emergency as a period where the Supreme Court allegedly failed to protect fundamental rights further complicates the narrative, adding a historical dimension to the ongoing debate. His argument that the electorate held the Prime Minister accountable in 1977 after the Emergency serves to reinforce his belief in the ultimate authority of the people, exercised through their elected representatives in Parliament. However, critics argue that this selective portrayal of history ignores the excesses committed by Parliament during the Emergency, including constitutional amendments that curtailed judicial review and concentrated power in the hands of the legislative branch. The core issue at stake is whether Parliament operates within the confines of the Constitution or whether it stands above it. Constitutional experts argue unequivocally that the Constitution is supreme, and that Parliament, along with the executive and judiciary, are its creations. This principle is enshrined in numerous Supreme Court judgments, most notably the Kesavananda Bharati case, which established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution in ways that would fundamentally alter its core principles. The debate sparked by Dhankhar's remarks underscores the importance of a robust and independent judiciary capable of safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring that all branches of government remain accountable to the rule of law. The contrasting views on the supremacy of Parliament versus the supremacy of the Constitution highlight the ongoing need for a nuanced understanding of the Indian constitutional framework and the delicate balance of power it establishes.
Dhankhar's arguments are rooted in the idea that elected representatives are the ultimate guardians of the Constitution because they are directly accountable to the people. He posits that the electorate's ability to remove leaders from power through elections ensures that Parliament remains responsive to the will of the people and therefore holds ultimate authority. This view, however, overlooks the potential for the tyranny of the majority, where the rights of minority groups may be disregarded by a Parliament dominated by a particular faction or ideology. The Constitution, with its enshrined fundamental rights and the judiciary's power of judicial review, serves as a crucial safeguard against such potential abuses of power. The judiciary's role in interpreting the Constitution and striking down laws that violate fundamental rights is essential to protecting the rights of all citizens, regardless of their political affiliation or social standing. Dhankhar's criticism of the Supreme Court's alleged acquiescence during the Emergency era is a valid point, highlighting a period when the judiciary arguably failed to adequately protect fundamental rights. However, this historical example should not be used to justify the erosion of judicial independence or the concentration of power in Parliament. Instead, it should serve as a reminder of the importance of a vigilant and independent judiciary capable of holding all branches of government accountable. The constitutional scheme, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in numerous landmark judgments, is based on a system of checks and balances, where each branch of government has the power to limit the actions of the others. This system is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful and to ensure that all branches operate within the confines of the Constitution. Parliament can pass laws, but the judiciary can strike them down if they are deemed unconstitutional. The executive can implement laws, but the judiciary can review their actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution. The president can appoint judges, but Parliament can impeach them for misconduct. This intricate web of checks and balances is essential to maintaining a stable and democratic government.
Furthermore, Dhankhar's focus on the accountability of elected representatives overlooks the fact that the judiciary also plays a crucial role in holding the executive and legislative branches accountable. The judiciary's power to review government actions and legislation ensures that they comply with the Constitution and that the rights of citizens are protected. Without an independent judiciary, the executive and legislative branches would be free to act without any meaningful constraints, potentially leading to abuses of power and the erosion of fundamental rights. The debate surrounding the supremacy of Parliament versus the supremacy of the Constitution is not merely an academic exercise; it has significant implications for the future of Indian democracy. A strong and independent judiciary is essential to safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring that all branches of government remain accountable to the rule of law. While Dhankhar's concerns about the accountability of elected representatives are valid, they should not be used to justify the erosion of judicial independence or the concentration of power in Parliament. Instead, the focus should be on strengthening the system of checks and balances that is designed to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too dominant. The Constitution is not merely a set of rules; it is a living document that must be interpreted and applied in light of changing social and political realities. The judiciary plays a crucial role in this process, ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant and effective in protecting the rights of all citizens. The ongoing debate about the supremacy of Parliament versus the supremacy of the Constitution underscores the importance of a robust and informed public discourse about the fundamental principles of Indian democracy. It is essential that all citizens understand the roles and responsibilities of each branch of government and the importance of maintaining a system of checks and balances that prevents any single branch from becoming too powerful. Only through such a discourse can we ensure that Indian democracy remains strong and vibrant for generations to come.
In conclusion, Vice President Dhankhar's recent assertions about the supremacy of Parliament have triggered a vital national conversation about the fundamental principles underpinning Indian democracy. While his emphasis on the accountability of elected representatives resonates with the democratic spirit, it's crucial to remember that the Constitution reigns supreme. It serves as the foundation upon which all branches of government are built, outlining their powers and limitations. The judiciary, acting as its guardian, possesses the authority to interpret and protect its provisions, ensuring that no single entity can usurp its authority. The Emergency era serves as a sobering reminder of the dangers of unchecked power, highlighting the imperative of a robust and independent judiciary capable of safeguarding constitutional values and preventing abuses of power. The system of checks and balances, as enshrined in the Constitution, serves as a bulwark against tyranny, fostering accountability and preventing any single branch from dominating the others. The Indian Constitution, a dynamic and evolving document, adapts to societal changes, requiring ongoing interpretation and application. The judiciary plays a pivotal role in this process, guaranteeing its continued relevance and effectiveness in safeguarding the rights of all citizens. Ultimately, the strength of Indian democracy hinges on an informed public discourse regarding its fundamental principles. A comprehensive understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each government branch, coupled with a commitment to maintaining a system of checks and balances, is essential for ensuring its enduring vitality and resilience. Dhankhar's remarks, while controversial, serve as a catalyst for this critical reflection, urging us to reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and the principles of democratic governance.
The Kesavananda Bharati case serves as a cornerstone in understanding the limits of parliamentary power in India. The Supreme Court, in this landmark ruling, established the doctrine of basic structure, asserting that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its fundamental features. This judgment effectively safeguarded essential principles such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and the independence of the judiciary, preventing Parliament from eroding the core values of Indian democracy. The court's assertion that the amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited served as a crucial check on legislative authority, ensuring that constitutional amendments remain within the framework of the Constitution's basic structure. The 13-judge bench's 6:7 decision underscored the delicate balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy, emphasizing the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution's fundamental principles. The Kesavananda Bharati case remains a landmark example of judicial review, demonstrating the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the Constitution's basic structure and preventing its subversion through parliamentary amendments. The judgment reinforced the concept of constitutionalism, limiting the power of the state and protecting the rights of citizens against arbitrary government action. By establishing the doctrine of basic structure, the Supreme Court ensured that the Indian Constitution remains a living document, adapting to changing times while preserving its fundamental principles and values. The case serves as a testament to the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution, protecting it from legislative overreach and ensuring that the government remains accountable to the rule of law.
Furthermore, the debate surrounding the supremacy of Parliament versus the Constitution also touches upon the concept of popular sovereignty. While Parliament is elected by the people and represents their will, the Constitution is also a product of the people, having been framed by the Constituent Assembly, which represented the diverse voices of India. The Constitution, therefore, embodies the collective will of the people, expressed through their representatives, and serves as the foundation upon which the government is established. The idea of popular sovereignty is not absolute, however, as it is tempered by the principles of constitutionalism and the rule of law. The Constitution sets limits on the power of the government, ensuring that it cannot infringe upon the rights and freedoms of citizens. The judiciary plays a crucial role in protecting these rights, acting as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches. The concept of judicial review is essential to maintaining a balance between popular sovereignty and constitutionalism. It allows the judiciary to ensure that the laws passed by Parliament and the actions taken by the executive comply with the Constitution, preventing the government from exceeding its powers and violating the rights of citizens. The debate about the supremacy of Parliament versus the Constitution is, therefore, a debate about the nature of popular sovereignty and the role of the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens. It is a debate that requires careful consideration of the principles of constitutionalism, the rule of law, and the balance of power between the different branches of government. Only through such a consideration can we ensure that Indian democracy remains strong and vibrant for generations to come.
The views of constitutional experts like P.D.T. Achary and Faizan Mustafa provide valuable insights into the intricacies of the Indian constitutional framework. Achary's emphasis on the Constitution as the source of power for all governmental institutions underscores the limitations on parliamentary sovereignty. His reference to the Kesavananda Bharati case further highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the Constitution's basic structure, preventing Parliament from fundamentally altering its core principles. Mustafa's assertion that the Indian Parliament operates under the Constitution, rather than above it, reinforces the concept of constitutional supremacy. He points out that the Indian Constitution deliberately avoids adopting the British doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, instead establishing a system where the Constitution reigns supreme. Mustafa's explanation of judicial review as an integral part of constitutional supremacy emphasizes the judiciary's essential role in ensuring that laws passed by Parliament comply with the Constitution and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. His analysis highlights the importance of an independent judiciary in safeguarding constitutional values and preventing the abuse of power by the legislative branch. The perspectives of these constitutional experts contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the delicate balance of power within the Indian government, reinforcing the principle that the Constitution serves as the ultimate authority, guiding and limiting the actions of all branches of government.
Finally, the article's analysis of the constitutional amendments passed during the Emergency highlights the dangers of unchecked parliamentary power and the importance of judicial review. The Constitution (Thirty-eighth Amendment) Act, which barred judicial review of the Emergency, and the Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, which took away the power of the Supreme Court to try electoral disputes concerning the President and Vice President, demonstrate the lengths to which a government can go to suppress dissent and consolidate power when judicial oversight is weakened. The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, which inserted the words “sovereign secular socialist democratic republic” in the Preamble but also stripped the judiciary of its right to hear election petitions and gave wide-ranging powers to Parliament to amend the Constitution, further illustrates the potential for abuse when parliamentary power is unchecked. These amendments serve as a cautionary tale, reminding us of the importance of a strong and independent judiciary capable of protecting constitutional values and preventing the erosion of fundamental rights. They underscore the need for a system of checks and balances that prevents any single branch of government from becoming too powerful and ensures that all branches remain accountable to the rule of law. The lessons of the Emergency should inform our understanding of the ongoing debate about the supremacy of Parliament versus the Constitution, reminding us of the vital role that the judiciary plays in safeguarding the principles of Indian democracy.
Source: Dhankhar Says ‘Parliament is Supreme’ But What Does the Constitution Say?