Introduction
The Constitution of India envisages a harmonious interplay among the three organs of the State—the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary—each functioning within its constitutionally demarcated domain. The doctrine of separation of powers, complemented by a system of checks and balances, is central to preserving democratic accountability and institutional integrity. However, in practice, the relationship between the Legislature (Parliament) and the Judiciary has been marred by recurrent tensions and confrontations, particularly regarding constitutional interpretation, amendment powers, judicial independence, and institutional supremacy.
Historical Context and Constitutional Framework
Under Articles 245 to 255, Parliament is vested with the plenary power to enact legislation within the limits of the Constitution. Conversely, under Articles 124 to 147, the Judiciary—particularly the Supreme Court—derives its authority to interpret and enforce constitutional provisions. The jurisprudential evolution of India has witnessed numerous instances where the limits of legislative competence and the scope of judicial review have come into conflict, giving rise to constitutional crises and landmark adjudications.
Newly Arising Conflict
VP Dhankhar vs Supreme Court: Clash Over Powers
Background
Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2024 verdict in the Tamil Nadu vs. Governor case, where the Court set a three-month timeline for the President to act on state bills forwarded by Governors.
Key Comments by VP Dhankhar
- Called the judgment “a directive to the President”, questioning its constitutional validity.
- Accused the judiciary of acting like a “super Parliament”, overstepping its role.
- Described Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces”, calling for judicial accountability.
- Warned against overlapping of powers among the three constitutional organs.
What is Article 142?
Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to ensure “complete justice” in any case — a broad discretionary power often invoked in complex or exceptional situations.
Reactions & Criticism
- Kapil Sibal called Dhankhar’s remarks “unconstitutional and politically motivated”.
- Randeep Surjewala backed the Court, saying the ruling ensures checks and balances on high offices.
- Justice Ajay Rastogi (Retd.) defended the Court, denying claims of judicial overreach, and reaffirmed judicial independence.
- Noted that the matter is still under judicial consideration, with the next hearing on May 5.
Core Issue
The controversy reflects rising tension over the separation of powers and the limits of judicial review, especially when executive actions come under scrutiny.
Landmark Jurisprudence and Points of Constitutional Tension
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
In this seminal case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is not unfettered, and introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine restricts Parliament from amending the Constitution in a manner that abrogates its fundamental framework, including rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial independence. The decision was perceived by many within the Legislature as judicial encroachment upon parliamentary sovereignty.
2. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment and the Emergency Era (1975–76)
During the Emergency imposed under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Parliament enacted the 42nd Amendment, which sought to dilute judicial review and assert legislative supremacy. However, post-Emergency, the Supreme Court—in cases like Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)—struck down several provisions of the Amendment, thereby reaffirming the inviolability of the Basic Structure and restoring the Judiciary’s role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
3. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (NJAC Case, 2015)
The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and its corresponding constitutional amendment were invalidated by the Supreme Court on grounds that they violated the independence of the judiciary, which is integral to the Basic Structure. The judgment reignited debates over judicial primacy in appointments versus legislative oversight, a contentious issue that remains unresolved.
Recent Developments and Continuing Constitutional Friction
1. Delay in Judicial Appointments
The Judiciary has persistently criticized the Executive and Parliament for undue delays in processing Collegium recommendations, while the Legislature argues for greater transparency and reform in the appointment mechanism. This ongoing impasse raises questions about institutional autonomy vs. democratic accountability.
2. Judicial Scrutiny of Legislation and Ordinances
Several recent enactments, including the Farm Laws, Electoral Bonds Scheme, and unilateral legislative actions, have been subject to intense judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s interventions—particularly when Parliament circumvents deliberative processes—are often labeled by the Legislature as judicial overreach, thereby triggering a contest over the legitimacy of judicial review in matters of public policy.
3. Invocation of Parliamentary Privileges
Legislative bodies have, on occasion, invoked parliamentary privileges to initiate proceedings against individuals—including judges, bureaucrats, and media personnel—who critique legislative conduct. This raises complex constitutional questions about the limits of legislative privilege vis-à-vis fundamental rights, especially under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21.
Core Constitutional Issues Underlying the Conflict
- Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach
- Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Constitutional Supremacy
- Amending Power vs. Basic Structure Doctrine
- Autonomy of Judicial Appointments vs. Democratic Accountability
- Separation of Powers vs. Institutional Collaboration
Proposed Reforms and the Way Forward
To mitigate ongoing institutional friction and to reinforce democratic stability, several reforms may be considered:
- Codification of Judicial Appointments
Introducing a constitutionally compliant and transparent framework for judicial appointments that balances judicial independence with democratic legitimacy. - Defined Parameters of Parliamentary Privilege
Enacting legislation that clearly defines the scope of parliamentary privilege and ensures that it is not misused to suppress legitimate dissent or free expression. - Judicial Restraint in Policy Matters
Encouraging the Judiciary to exercise self-imposed restraint in matters that fall within the exclusive policy domain of the Legislature, unless there is a manifest violation of fundamental rights or constitutional principles. - Institutional Dialogue and Cooperative Federalism
Establishing formal consultative mechanisms between the Judiciary and Legislature to ensure that major constitutional developments are not unilaterally imposed.
Conclusion
The ongoing contestation between Parliament and the Judiciary reflects a dynamic constitutional dialogue, rather than a dysfunctional impasse. Both institutions play indispensable roles in the functioning of India’s constitutional democracy. However, this relationship must be governed by mutual respect, institutional humility, and a shared commitment to the Constitution as the ultimate sovereign.
As former Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah aptly observed, “The Constitution is a living organism; its success depends not merely on the text, but on the trust and conduct of those who operate it.” It is imperative that both Parliament and Judiciary act as co-guardians of the Constitution, rather than as adversaries seeking institutional supremacy.
Contributed by: Sumegh