Judicial review cornerstone of democracy: CJI

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has said judicial review should be viewed not as judicial supremacy but as a constitutional responsibility designed to preserve the rule of law whenever constitutional institutions fail to act within their prescribed limits.

“It would be no exaggeration to claim that this expansive power of review is a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy, affirming that legality and constitutionality are fundamental preconditions to the exercise of Governmental authority,” he said. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) made the remarks on Monday at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) conference in Stockholm. The theme of the conference was “Safeguarding the Rule of Law — Experiences from India and Sweden”.

Justice Kant also underscored the centrality of the rule of law, judicial independence and constitutional democracy in safeguarding individual liberties, asserting that judicial review is not merely a power but a constitutional duty entrusted to the courts. “The rule of law is neither a welfare scheme nor an economic policy. It does not, by itself, bake bread, create livelihoods or remove poverty. What it does is something more fundamental, though less immediately visible: it disciplines the exercise of power. “It ensures that public authority acts through known, stable and general rules; that citizens are treated as equals before the law; and that no person is left vulnerable to the whims of arbitrary Government,” he said.

Tracing the roots of Indian legal consciousness to ancient traditions of “Dharma” that predate common law by millennia, the CJI said the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law are not mere “post-colonial imports” from the West.

He referred to India’s constitutional journey since Independence and described the Constitution as a framework that guarantees rights while distributing powers among the legislature, executive and judiciary. He said the Constitution is a “tessellation of rights guaranteed to its citizens”, while entrusting distinct duties, obligations and powers to the three pillars of governance — the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. “In the Indian template, the separation of powers is not a system of rigid, hermetically-sealed barriers, but a beautifully-calibrated network of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of absolute power. The Supreme Court has consistently intervened when this delicate equilibrium has been threatened,” he said.

The CJI emphasised that the endurance of constitutional democracy depends not only on constitutional text but also on the faithful adherence of institutions to constitutional norms. “The greatest safeguard lies in an independent judiciary, which must remain a vigilant guardian of constitutional supremacy,” he said.

“This enduring commitment to independence enables the Indian judiciary to do more than simply resolve disputes or defend constitutional boundaries. It allows our courts to actively shape the democratic imagination of a vast and varied society and function as architects of democratic life itself,” he said.

Referring to constitutional evolution, the CJI highlighted the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which established the basic-structure doctrine, and the S R Bommai decision, which strengthened federalism and democratic governance by requiring legislative floor tests before dismissing elected Governments.

He also outlined the constitutional safeguards that ensure judicial independence, including the separation of the judiciary from the executive, constitutional protections for judges and institutional mechanisms governing judicial appointments.

Tracing the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence, Justice Kant said the Supreme Court has significantly expanded access to justice through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), enabling even disadvantaged and marginalised citizens to seek constitutional remedies.

He cited several landmark judgments that broadened the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution by recognising rights relating to speedy trial, dignity, livelihood and environmental protection.

The CJI highlighted the judiciary’s contribution to environmental jurisprudence through doctrines, such as absolute liability, public trust and the polluter-pays principle.

He also referred to judicial interventions that strengthened electoral transparency, enhanced women’s representation within legal institutions, addressed workplace sexual harassment and expanded reproductive rights. While emphasising the judiciary’s proactive role in protecting constitutional values, Justice Kant stressed that judicial activism must be accompanied by institutional restraint. “The rule of law is preserved only when the judiciary honours its own institutional boundaries while holding other branches to theirs,” he said, adding that courts are not intended to function as “a second appellate authority or a super-executive” over policy decisions of the elected Government.

The CJI rejected the notion that judicial independence and the rule of law are exclusively Western concepts and referred to the ancient Indian tradition by narrating the story of King Prahlada. He said India’s constitutional experience demonstrates that constitutional values rooted in a diverse democracy possess universal relevance.

“The true strength of our judiciary lies not simply in its willingness to speak courageously when the constitutional fabric is threatened, but in its profound institutional wisdom to know when deference and restraint are themselves the highest expressions of constitutional fidelity,” he said in his concluding remarks.

“The true strength of our judiciary lies not only in speaking courageously when constitutional values are threatened, but also in recognising when restraint itself is the highest expression of constitutional fidelity,” the CJI said.