The Tussle Between The Indian Parliament And The Judiciary: In The Early Post- Constitutional Period
- IJLLR Journal
- 3 hours ago
- 2 min read
Ujjawal Singh, ICFAI University, Dehradun
Aparna Shri, ICFAI University, Dehradun
ABSTRACT
The relation in between the Indian Parliament and the judiciary during the early years after the Indian Constitution came into effect. Both of the nation's most important pillars were fighting over supremacy: the Indian Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution, while the judiciary took the stand that the Constitution is the supreme law and the nation has to follow it. Parliament and the judiciary argue over Article 368, which gives Parliament the power to amend the whole Constitution, while the judiciary takes a strong stand on Article 13(2), which clearly states that any law that violates the fundamental rights in Part III shall be declared void and unconstitutional. The Indian judiciary clearly made a perception in the mind that if the provisional parliament or even the constitution makers want to make the parliament supreme over the constitution, then they clearly would not mention the term “Any Law” under Article 13(2) in the constitution, while they do show they cut their own hand regarding the supremacy over the constitution. This article examines the historical background of the tussle, how parliament amended the constitution for the achievement of its goal of socio-economic empowerment and preservation of peace and unity of the nation and how the judiciary plays a safeguard role for the fundamental rights and to safeguard the Constitution's basic structure.
The study does not argue only about the parliament-judiciary conflict for institutional supremacy, but also about a necessary constitutional dialogue that helped to define the features of Indian Democracy. By balancing the need for social transformation with the protection of constitutional values, the tussle ultimately strengthened the principle of constitutional supremacy. For achieving this there was a series of landmark judgments which gave the most important Doctrine of “Basic Structure”, gave the concept of checks and balances between the three organs: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.
