Supreme Court as Custodian of Liberties
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Indian Judiciary
Source: TH
Context: The article discusses the Supreme Court’s role as a protector of individual liberties
Background of the case Involved:
The case involves former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, who was arrested and detained for an extended period in connection with corruption allegations. His incarceration raised concerns about the prolonged pre-trial detention and the denial of bail. The Supreme Court of India eventually granted him bail, emphasizing the principles of justice, individual liberty, and the right to a fair and speedy trial.
What do Liberties mean?
Liberties refer to the basic rights and freedoms that individuals are entitled to, usually protected by law or the Constitution. These include:
• Freedom of Speech: The right to express one’s opinions without censorship (e.g., a journalist freely writing about government policies).
• Right to Privacy: The protection against unwarranted government intrusion into personal life (e.g., safeguarding personal data from unauthorized access).
• Freedom of Movement: The ability to travel or reside in different places without restrictions (e.g., moving to another state for work).
• Right to Fair Trial: The guarantee that one will be treated justly in legal proceedings (e.g., being provided with legal representation and a chance to defend oneself in court).
These liberties are essential to ensuring that individuals can live without undue interference or oppression.
Provisions that make the Supreme Court The Guardian of Civil Liberties:
Provision/Tool | Explanation
Article 13 | Declares any law void if it contravenes Fundamental Rights. Supreme Court can invalidate such laws.
Article 32 | Grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Article 136 | Allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal on matters, including civil liberties.
SLP (Special Leave Petition) | A petition to the Supreme Court seeking permission to appeal against lower court decisions.
Article 142 | Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for complete justice, including protecting civil liberties.
Writs | Legal orders like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc., to enforce Fundamental Rights.
PIL (Public Interest Litigation) | Petitions addressing broader social concerns to ensure justice on matters affecting the public.
Judicial Review | Power to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions.
Basic Structure Doctrine | Ensures certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments.
Doctrine of Severability | Allows invalidation of unconstitutional parts of a law while preserving the rest.
Doctrine of Eclipse | Temporarily suspends laws infringing on Fundamental Rights until they are aligned with the Constitution.
Doctrine of Substantive Due Process | Ensures laws affecting fundamental rights are just, fair, and reasonable.
Doctrine of Colorable Legislation | Prevents indirect legislation that violates constitutional limits.
Instances where the Supreme Court has acted as the guardian of civil liberties:
Case | Instance of Supreme Court as Guardian of Civil Liberties
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) | Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, ensuring fair, just, and reasonable laws.
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) | Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, safeguarding essential constitutional features including civil liberties.
Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) | Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts, protecting the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) | Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, protecting individuals from arbitrary state actions.
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) | Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, upholding the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Arnab Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra (2020) | Emphasized the right to personal liberty and the principle of bail over-incarceration, reinforcing the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024) | Reaffirmed the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21
Challenges Associated With the Functioning of the Supreme Court:
• Prolonged Incarceration: The Supreme Court faces criticism for lengthy pre-trial detentions, raising concerns about the balance between individual liberty and judicial processes.
• Weaponization of Penal Laws: There are apprehensions about the misuse of stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), leading to prolonged detention without swift justice.
• Case Delays and Pendency: Huge backlog of cases leads to significant delays in justice delivery, affecting public confidence and litigants’ lives.
• Implementation of Judgments: Slow or inadequate enforcement of Court orders, reducing the impact of decisions and causing legal unpredictability.
• Independence of Judiciary: Threats to judicial independence from procedural delays, appointments, and potential corruption, challenging the integrity of the judiciary.
• Judicial Overreach and Activism: Criticism of the Court’s encroachment on legislative and executive domains, potentially undermining the separation of powers.
• Appointments and Transparency Issues: Lack of transparency and clear standards in the judicial appointment process, leading to erosion of trust in the judiciary.
Way Forward:
• Strengthening Implementation Frameworks: Create clear guidelines for executing Supreme Court judgments and establish monitoring systems to track compliance.
• Reducing Case Backlog*: Increase judges and staff, and implement tech solutions like e-filing. Example: The e-Courts project for better court management.*
• Ensuring Doctrinal Consistency: Apply uniform legal principles and promote consistency in rulings. Example: Apply fair trial principles from recent rulings across similar cases.
• Addressing Judicial Overreach: Clarify judicial boundaries and promote restraint to maintain balance among government branches.
• Improving Appointments and Transparency: Revise the Collegium system for better transparency in judicial appointments.
• Protecting Judicial Independence: Address threats to independence and promote dialogue among branches to uphold judicial integrity.
Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct:
• Independence: Judges should decide cases free from external pressures.
• Impartiality: Judges must be unbiased and fair.
• Integrity: Judges should act honestly and ethically.
• Propriety: Judges must uphold the dignity of their office.
• Equality: Judges should treat everyone equally.
• Competence and Diligence: Judges must have legal expertise and handle cases thoroughly.
Insta Links:
• Supreme Court
Mains Link:
Q1. Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (UPSC 2021)
Q2. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (UPSC 2017)
Prelims Link:
Q. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: (UPSC 2021)
• Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.
• A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither I nor 2
Ans: (c)