Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as “the very soul and heart of the Constitution”, underlining the centrality of the judiciary in enforcing Fundamental Rights. In a constitutional democracy like India, the judiciary acts as the constitutional sentinel, ensuring that individual liberties under Part III are not reduced to mere promises but are meaningfully protected.
Judiciary as the Guardian of the Constitution:
- Article 13: Declares laws violating Fundamental Rights as void.
- Article 32 and Article 226: Empower constitutional courts like SC and HC to enforce rights through writs.
Judiciary’s role in protecting Fundamental Rights:
Judicial Review:
- Enables courts to test legislative and executive actions against constitutional guarantees. It enabled supremacy of the Constitution over parliamentary majorities.
- For e.g., the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Fundamental Rights form part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Expansive Interpretation of Rights:
- Courts have adopted a dynamic and purposive interpretation of Fundamental Rights to meet evolving societal needs.
- For e.g., in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the SC interlinked Articles 14, 19, and 21, holding that any procedure depriving life or liberty must be “just, fair and reasonable.”
Enforcement through Writ Jurisdiction:
- Courts issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto ensuring speedy and effective remedies, especially against State excesses.
- For e.g., in the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) case, SC issued guidelines to prevent custodial torture, reinforcing Article 21.
Judicial Activism:
- Judiciary steps in when legislative or executive inertia threatens rights.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalised homosexuality, affirming dignity and equality of LGBTQ+ persons.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) laid down guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace in absence of legislation, later leading to the POSH Act, 2013.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
- Relaxed the doctrine of locus standi to allow any public-spirited individual to approach courts enabling protection of rights of bonded labourers, undertrials, environmental victims, and marginalized groups.
- The M.C. Mehta case expanded Article 21 to include the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Protection of Marginalised Groups:
- Courts have intervened to protect prisoners’ rights (Sunil Batra case), child labour victims, and undertrial prisoners.
- For e.g., NALSA v. Union of India (2014) recognised transgender persons as the “third gender” with full Fundamental Rights.
Balancing Rights and security:
- Judiciary ensures that restrictions under Article 19(2) are Legal, Necessary, and Proportionate.
- K.S. Kishore v. Union of India (2023) case reaffirmed that grounds for restricting free speech are exhaustively listed in Article 19(2) and cannot be expanded by executive fiat.
However, issues remain:
· Judicial Delays: Over 80,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court and 4+ crore cases across courts which dilute the effectiveness of Fundamental Rights enforcement.
· Judicial Overreach: Excessive judicial activism may blur separation of powers, inviting criticism of “judicial legislation”.
· Executive and Legislative Pushback: Increasing attempts to regulate speech, digital platforms, and dissent test may undermine judicial independence.
· Accessibility concerns: High costs, procedural complexity, and awareness gaps limit access for the poorest sections.
Conclusion:
The Indian judiciary has played an indispensable role in transforming Fundamental Rights from static text into living guarantees, adapting constitutional values to changing social realities. As democracy deepens, the judiciary must continue to protect free speech rather than regulate it, intervene without encroaching, and remain faithful to the constitutional promise of “justice – social, economic and political.”
‘+1’ Value Addition:
- According to World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2023, countries with strong constitutional courts show higher protection of civil liberties.
- In Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial activism must not become judicial overreach.
- Over 50% of PILs in the Supreme Court relate to Fundamental Rights and governance failures.
- “A weak judiciary converts Fundamental Rights into fragile promises” – Upendra Baxi.
La Excellence IAS Academy, the best IAS coaching in Hyderabad, known for delivering quality content and conceptual clarity for UPSC 2025 preparation.
FOLLOW US ON:
◉ YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@CivilsPrepTeam
◉ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaExcellenceIAS
◉ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laexcellenceiasacademy/
GET IN TOUCH:
Contact us at info@laex.in, https://laex.in/contact-us/
or Call us @ +91 9052 29 2929, +91 9052 99 2929, +91 9154 24 2140
OUR BRANCHES:
Head Office: H No: 1-10-225A, Beside AEVA Fertility Center, Ashok Nagar Extension, VV Giri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, 500020
Madhapur: Flat no: 301, survey no 58-60, Guttala begumpet Madhapur metro pillar: 1524, Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana 500081
Bangalore: Plot No: 99, 2nd floor, 80 Feet Road, Beside Poorvika Mobiles, Chandra Layout, Attiguppe, Near Vijaya Nagara, Bengaluru, 560040