The judiciary in India plays a vital role in sustaining democracy by ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Democracy thrives on the principles of rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of rights, and the judiciary safeguards these ideals by acting as the final interpreter of the Constitution. Its role is not confined to resolving disputes but extends to protecting liberty, equality, and justice, which form the core values of the democratic framework.
One of the judiciary’s most significant contributions is its function as the guardian of the Constitution. Through the power of judicial review, it examines the validity of laws and executive actions to ensure they conform to constitutional principles. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) laid down the basic structure doctrine, holding that features such as democracy, secularism, and rule of law cannot be altered even by Parliament. This ensures that constitutional supremacy prevails over majoritarian impulses, preserving the democratic spirit.
Another crucial responsibility of the judiciary is the protection of fundamental rights. Article 32, described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, empowers citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court in case of violations. The Court has expanded the scope of rights under Article 21 to include dignity, livelihood, privacy, and even environmental protection. In cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the judiciary reinforced that democracy cannot exist without meaningful protection of individual rights.
The judiciary also acts as a check on the executive and legislature, preventing misuse of power. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), it struck down attempts to place the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial scrutiny, affirming that even the highest offices remain accountable under the law. However, the judiciary’s role during the Emergency of 1975–77 revealed its vulnerabilities, especially in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), where the suspension of habeas corpus was upheld. Though criticized as a dark phase, subsequent constitutional amendments and judicial pronouncements restored faith in the judiciary’s commitment to democracy.
Over the years, the judiciary has also embraced activism to strengthen democracy. Through the development of Public Interest Litigation, it opened the doors of justice to marginalized sections and addressed issues of public importance. In cases relating to bonded labour, environmental protection, and custodial violence, the judiciary compelled the State to uphold its constitutional obligations. By doing so, it democratized access to justice and deepened the reach of democratic governance.
Despite its achievements, the judiciary faces challenges that affect its ability to safeguard democracy. The problem of judicial delays, with crores of cases pending across courts, weakens public trust. Allegations of judicial overreach, where courts appear to intrude into legislative or executive spheres, raise questions about balance of powers. Concerns over transparency in appointments and accountability also persist. Yet, despite these shortcomings, the judiciary remains the most trusted organ in protecting democratic values.
In conclusion, the judiciary in India has been indispensable in upholding democracy by ensuring constitutional supremacy, protecting fundamental rights, and checking arbitrary power. Its proactive role has preserved institutions and expanded the meaning of democracy by making it more inclusive and rights-oriented. To continue fulfilling this responsibility, reforms in efficiency, transparency, and accountability are essential. Ultimately, the judiciary stands as the guardian of liberty and equality, ensuring that the promise of democracy is not merely theoretical but a lived reality for every citizen.
