The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that the Constitution stands above all branches of government, including the legislature, executive, and judiciary, amid ongoing debates around institutional authority.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, alongside Justice Sanjay Kumar, emphasized that judicial review is a constitutionally granted responsibility, not a self-assumed power. The judges stated that when courts assess the constitutional validity of laws, they do so within the boundaries established by the Constitution itself.
This clarification comes in the backdrop of recent remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, who criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its mandate—particularly in instances where courts have set deadlines for executive actions such as presidential or gubernatorial assent to legislation. Dhankhar had previously asserted that Parliament holds supreme authority and that no other institution has a superior role envisioned in the constitutional framework.
Countering this, the Court stated, “All three pillars of democracy legislative, executive, and judiciary operate under the overarching authority of the Constitution. It is the Constitution that sets the limits and responsibilities of each organ. The power of judicial review is not self-conferred but granted explicitly by the Constitution through Articles 32 and 226.”
The Court further noted that the judiciary’s role includes ensuring that actions by other branches of government align with constitutional norms. It reaffirmed that judicial decisions are grounded in legal reasoning and not influenced by political, religious, or social biases.
“When citizens seek judicial review, they are exercising their constitutional or legal rights,” the Court observed. “Our consideration of such matters is part of fulfilling the judiciary’s duty as a constitutional guardian.”
The comments were made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking contempt proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who made inflammatory remarks following the Supreme Court’s intervention in a challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Dubey had gone as far as to claim that CJI Khanna was “responsible for civil unrest” and accused the Court of inciting religious conflict in the country.
The bench criticized Dubey’s remarks, calling them “irresponsible and deliberately provocative“, indicating a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of constitutional courts. However, the Court chose not to initiate any punitive action, asserting that such “absurd” comments were unlikely to erode public trust in the judiciary.
(With Inputs From Live Law)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
