The Supreme Court jurisprudence on civil liberties in India plays a crucial role in protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. Over the years, the Court has delivered several landmark judgments that have shaped the understanding and application of civil liberties, such as the right to free speech, the right to privacy, and the right to life and personal liberty. By interpreting the Constitution in a way that balances individual rights with the interests of the state, the Supreme Court has acted as a guardian of civil liberties, ensuring that citizens are protected from unjust laws and government actions.
Tags: GS – 2, Polity & Governance- Fundamental Rights– Judicial Review — Separation of Powers — Judgements & Cases – Judiciary
Context:
- The Supreme Court ruled that a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating that prolonged incarceration without trial, even under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), violates this right.
- The Court emphasised that “liberty is an intrinsic part” of constitutionalism and reinforced that bail should be the norm, not the exception.
- This ruling highlights the need for timely justice and addresses broader concerns about delays and inefficiencies in the criminal justice system, especially under strict laws like the PMLA.
- The decision underscores the Court’s role in upholding civil liberties and democratic values, advocating for a more efficient and rights-respecting justice system.
Constitutional Provisions Making the Supreme Court the Guardian of Civil Liberties
- Article 13:
- Declares laws contravening Fundamental Rights as void. The Supreme Court adjudicates on the constitutionality of such laws.
- Article 32:
- Grants the right to constitutional remedies, enabling individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
- Article 136:
- Provides the Supreme Court with the power to grant special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal, including issues related to civil liberties.
- Article 142:
- Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order or decree necessary to do complete justice, including the protection of civil liberties.
- SLP (Special Leave Petition):
- Allows appeals to the Supreme Court against lower court decisions on significant legal issues, including those involving civil liberties.
Other Tools:
- Writs:
- Legal orders to enforce Fundamental Rights or direct public authorities. Includes Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto.
- PIL (Public Interest Litigation):
- Petitions to address public issues and ensure justice on broader social concerns.
- Judicial Review:
- The power of courts to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions to ensure compliance with the Constitution.
Various Doctrines
- Basic Structure Doctrine:
- Asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as democracy and secularism, cannot be altered by amendments (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973).
- Doctrine of Severability:
- Allows for invalidation of only unconstitutional parts of a law, keeping the rest functional if it can operate independently.
- Doctrine of Eclipse:
- States that laws infringing on Fundamental Rights are suspended, not wholly void, and can be revived if made constitutional.
- Doctrine of Substantive Due Process:
- Protects fundamental rights beyond procedural fairness, ensuring laws are just, fair, and reasonable.
- Doctrine of Colorable Legislation:
- Prevents the government from using its legislative authority in an unconstitutional manner, also known as “Fraud on the Constitution.”
Notable Supreme Court Cases Upholding Civil Liberties:
- Delhi Excise Policy Case (2024):
- Reaffirmed the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, highlighting issues with prolonged incarceration and the need for timely justice.
- Arnab Goswami vs. The State of Maharashtra (2020):
- Emphasised personal liberty and the principle that bail should be the norm, reinforcing the right to a fair and speedy trial under Article 21.
- Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018):
- Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by striking down Section 377 of the IPC, affirming LGBTQ+ rights and individual dignity.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017):
- Recognized the right to privacy as fundamental, protecting individual dignity against arbitrary state actions.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):
- Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for violating freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014):
- Reinforced the obligation of police to register FIRs for cognizable offences, ensuring prompt action on grievances.
- Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013):
- Disqualified lawmakers convicted of serious crimes from holding office immediately, enhancing accountability and credibility of elected representatives.
- Gaurav Jain vs. Union of India (1997):
- Addressed the rights of women and children in prostitution, recognizing them as victims and deserving protection and dignity.
- Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978):
- Expanded Article 21 to include the right to live with dignity, emphasising fairness in laws affecting personal liberty.
- Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973):
- Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, protecting fundamental rights as part of the Constitution’s basic framework.
- A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950):
- Early case on preventive detention, laying groundwork for later rulings that refined these laws to better align with fundamental rights.
- Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950):
- Held that banning a newspaper violated freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), reinforcing press freedom and civil liberties.
Challenges Associated with the Functioning of the Supreme Court:
- Implementation of Judgments:
- Critics have raised issues regarding the slow or inadequate enforcement of Supreme Court judgments.
- Even with clear directives, execution can lag, diminishing the impact of the Court’s decisions.
- Case Delays and Pendency:
- The Supreme Court faces a significant backlog of cases, with approximately 4.4 crore cases pending in Indian courts, including over 1 crore civil suits.
- Master of the Roster Issue:
- The concept of ‘master of the roster’ allows the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to form benches and allocate cases.
- Critics argue this power may imply CJI’s superiority and lead to selective and potentially biassed case assignments.
- Judicial Overreach and Activism:
- The Supreme Court is sometimes accused of judicial overreach and activism, potentially encroaching upon the legislature’s and executive’s domains.
- Appointments and Transparency Issues:
- The process for appointing Supreme Court judges has been criticised for lack of transparency and clear standards.
- The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, aimed at reforming this process, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
- Independence of Judiciary:
- Articles 50 and 124(2) guarantee judicial independence by separating judicial functions from executive influence.
- Despite these safeguards, threats to independence include issues related to judicial appointments, procedural delays, and corruption, which can impact the judiciary’s impartiality and effectiveness.
What Should be the Way Forward?
- Strengthening Implementation Frameworks:
- Develop clear guidelines for implementing Supreme Court judgments and establish monitoring mechanisms to ensure prompt execution and address non-compliance.
- Reducing Case Backlog:
- Increase judges and staff, implement technology solutions like e-filing and case management systems, such as the e-Courts Integrated Mission Mode Project, to expedite case processing and reduce backlog.
- Ensuring Doctrinal Consistency:
- Promote crossbench dialogue, standardise judicial approaches, and develop guidelines to ensure consistent application of legal principles.
- Addressing Judicial Overreach:
- Reinforce the separation of powers, clarify judicial intervention boundaries, and promote judicial restraint to maintain balance among government branches.
- Improving Appointments and Transparency:
- Revise the Collegium system to enhance transparency, establish clearer standards for judicial appointments, and ensure a more transparent selection process.
- Protecting Judicial Independence:
- Address threats to judicial independence, including concerns about appointments, delays, and corruption, and promote dialogue among the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches.
Conclusion:
The judiciary’s independence is crucial for a democratic polity, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Despite facing challenges like executive overreach, the Indian judiciary has upheld its role as a constitutional guardian through landmark judgments and a commitment to democratic values.
UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Question (PYQ)
Prelims:
Q:1 With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
- 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? (2021)
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither I nor 2
Ans: (c)
Mains:
Q:1 Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (2021)
Q:2 Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)
Source: TH
FAQs
Q: What are civil liberties?
- Answer: Civil liberties are basic rights and freedoms that protect individuals from government actions. These include the right to free speech, the right to privacy, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial. They ensure that citizens can live without undue interference from the state.
Q: How does the Supreme Court protect civil liberties in India?
- Answer: The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in protecting civil liberties by interpreting the Constitution and striking down laws or government actions that violate these rights. Through its rulings, the Court ensures that individual freedoms are upheld against misuse of power.
Q: Can you give an example of a Supreme Court ruling on civil liberties?
- Answer: One notable example is the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017), where the Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This ruling has had a significant impact on issues related to personal freedom and government surveillance.
Q: Why is the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on civil liberties important?
- Answer: The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on civil liberties is important because it sets legal precedents that protect the rights of individuals against government overreach. These rulings help maintain the balance between state authority and personal freedoms, ensuring a democratic and just society.
Q: What challenges does the Supreme Court face in protecting civil liberties?
- Answer: The Supreme Court faces challenges such as balancing national security with individual rights, interpreting the Constitution in the context of modern issues, and ensuring that its decisions are implemented effectively. Additionally, societal and political pressures can complicate its role in safeguarding civil liberties.
To get free counseling/support on UPSC preparation from expert mentors please call 9773890604
- Join our Main Telegram Channel and access PYQs, Current Affairs and UPSC Guidance for free – Edukemy for IAS
- Learn Economy for free- Economy for UPSC
- Learn CSAT – CSAT for UPSC
- Mains Answer Writing Practice-Mains Answer Writing
- For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here
