Judicial Activism vs. Parliamentary Supremacy: The Evolving Balance of Power in Indian Democracy

Indian constitutionalism blends parliamentary democracy (accountability) with judicial review (constitutional limits). The relationship is a dynamic equilibrium established through landmark judgments and legislative responses.

The Historical Apex: The Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine remains the cornerstone of judicial authority and the primary limitation on legislative sovereignty.

Contemporary Dynamics: Rise of Judicial Activism

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

• Relaxed locus standi enabled courts to act on issues affecting public welfare.
• Article 21 expanded to include rights to food, environment, education, healthcare, and livelihood.

Institutional Flashpoints: Appointments and Accountability

• Collegium system: Judicial control over appointments asserted via the Second and Third Judges Cases.
• NJAC (2015): The 99th Amendment establishing the NJAC was struck down as violating judicial independence.

Challenges and a Path to Constitutional Dialogue

Phase	Landmark Case(s)	Key Ruling/Principle	Impact on Power Balance
Early Supremacy	Shankari Prasad (1951), Sajjan Singh (1965)	Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 extended to Fundamental Rights	Parliamentary supremacy affirmed
The Challenge	Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)	Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights (Part III)	Judicial supremacy asserted; constitutional crisis
The Compromise	Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)	Basic Structure Doctrine: Parliament may amend any part, not the Constitution’s essential features	Judicial check on Parliament’s amending power

• Transparency: Increase openness in the Collegium system.
• Mutual respect: Judicial restraint in political questions; higher-quality legislative scrutiny.
• Institutional reform: Mechanisms for inter-branch communication to avoid confrontations.

Area of Tension	Judicial Intervention	Challenge to Parliament
Fiscal authority	Mandating resources for rights enforcement	Impacts budgetary prerogatives
Appointments	Collegium control	Limits democratic accountability in selection
New policy areas	Defining digital privacy and environmental justice	Preempts complex legislative processes