The role of indian judiciary in upholding constitutional values

Constitutionalism

The Indian Constitution gives social, political, economic, and development goals a framework. It offers the commitment to India's citizens to assert, ensure, and accomplish national goals in a democratic and socio-equal manner without resorting to violence. The liberal, welfare state, and centralized federalism concepts form the foundation of the constitution. Our Preamble, Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles of State Policy all enshrine these ideas.

Of all the written constitutions in the world, the Indian Constitution is the longest and most comprehensive. The Indian Constitution originally included 395 Articles organized into 22 Parts and 8 Schedules, as opposed to the American Constitution's 7 Articles, the Australian Constitution's 128 Articles, and the Canadian Constitution's 147 Articles. The constitution has had various Parts and Articles deleted since 1951, as well as several new Articles introduced. The Constitution's last numbered Article is still 448, its last numbered Part is 25, and there are 12 Schedules.

Part III of the Indian Constitution contains a written declaration of fundamental rights, which is seen as a characteristic of democratic states. These liberties are limitations on the government. The State is not permitted to pass legislation that limits or eliminates any of the rights granted to citizens in Part III of the constitution. If such a law is passed, it might be ruled illegal by the courts, but simply declaring some fundamental rights won't help if there is no system in place to make them law if necessary. Therefore, the Supreme Courts have been given the authority to provide effective remedies in the form of Writs HAEBEAS CORPUS, MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, and CERTIORARI by our constitution.

Rule of law by the judiciary for upholding constitutionalism

The goal is to establish the rule of law, and it would not be incorrect to say that the Indian Constitution is far superior to other world constitutions in this regard. The goal is to provide citizens with certain standards of behavior, citizenship, justice, and fair play in addition to security and equality of citizenship, which will aid in the process of nation-building. They were designed to help all citizens and individuals understand how the supreme law of the land has engulfed privileges and established the supreme perfect equality between one segment of the community and another in regards to all those rights that are crucial for the structure and further perfection of man.

One component of what Dicey refers to as the rule of law in England may be the assurance of equality before the law. It means that no one is above the law and that ordinary courts have jurisdiction over everyone, regardless of status or circumstance. Every official—from the prime minister all the way down to a constable or a tax collector—was under the same obligation to account for every act that lacked legal validity with us, according to Dicey. No one shall be subjected to harsh, uncivilized, or discriminating treatment, even when the thing is the securing of the foremost demands of law and order, according to the rule of law.

The notion of Rule of Law is credited to DICEY, whose essay on the British Constitution in 1885 contained the following three different but related ideas:

No one is above the law, hence there is no arbitrary power. A clear violation of the law must be proven in front of regular courts through conventional legal procedures before a man can be punished. Nobody can be punished by the government based only on its own decree. In Britain, those in positions of authority don't have extensive, arbitrary, or discretionary powers. Dicey argued that there is room for arbitrariness wherever there is discretion.

Every man is subject to the standard law and the jurisdiction of the standard courts, regardless of his rank or circumstance. Nobody is above the law.

The concept of the rule of law is credited to DICEY, whose writing on the British Constitution in 1885 included the three individual liberties listed below: the general principles of the British Constitution, and in particular, the liberties of the individual, are judge-made, meaning that these are the outcomes of judicial decisions determining the liberties of personal persons, particularly cases brought before the courts occasionally.

DICEY said that the British Constitution included the aforementioned characteristics.

Since the British Constitution was created by judges, individual rights are incorporated into and woven throughout the document. Because they are protected by the courts, individual rights are a part of the Constitution.

DICEY considered common law liberties such personal liberty, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble in public. DICEY was arguing that certain constitutions declare rights but don't give sufficient tools for enforcing those rights. On the other hand, the British Constitution makes the connection between the means of enforcing a right and, consequently, the right to be enforced.

The Habeas Corpus Act in particular, according to DICEY, was "worth 100 Constitutional articles protecting individual liberty." However, DICEY acknowledged that there was a legal system in place in the United States of America since there, the rights enshrined in the Constitution could be put into practice, providing them with legal security.

The third rule is unique to the United Kingdom. The fundamental liberties of the people are protected by the Constitution itself in many contemporary written constitutions. This is frequently thought to be a much greater guarantee of these rights, and even in Britain, there is currently a strong belief that fundamental rights should be protected.

Although DICEY's thesis has drawn criticism from a wide range of perspectives, its core tenet is that authority derives from and should be applied in accordance with the law. In essence, DICEY placed great stress on equality before the law, the absence of arbitrary power, and the protection of certain fundamental human rights under the rule of law, and these concepts are still important and relevant today.

It is also true that, as a result of practical government requirements, a variety of exceptions have been grafted onto these concepts in contemporary democratic countries. For instance, administrative tribunals have expanded, broad discretionary powers of the administration have become more widespread, and the institution of preventive detention has become a common practice in many democratic nations. The fundamental concepts, however, deserve to be preserved and advanced.

Several international conferences have explored the idea of the rule of law. To give it a socio-legal-economic context and a transnational character is the trouble being made.

Despite the fact that Indian courts repeatedly raise this question, the word "rule of law" has no clear-cut definition. The general focus of the rule of law is the lack of any center of unrestricted or arbitrary authority inside the nation, correct power structuring and management, and the absence of arbitrary behavior within the government. There is more government involvement in residents' daily lives, which gives the state more leeway to act arbitrarily. Rule of Law is advantageous as a remedy for the current state of affairs because it places a strong emphasis on excluding government arbitraryness, lawlessness, and unreasonableness.

The Indian Constitution is ultimately under the control of the judiciary. As a result, the court has the authority to invalidate laws passed by the Indian Parliament if the fundamental principles of the constitution are violated. Judicial Review is the term for this procedure.

Conclusion

For decisions involving constitutional freedom, fundamental rights, and obligations of a natural person or legal entity within the jurisdiction for safeguarding constitutionalism, the judicial system bears the greatest duty. Every legal entity's right to have its case judged purely on the basis of laws passed by the legislature and on the basis of the proof and fact of the case without undue pressure or influence is safeguarded by the independence of judges from a District Court judge to a Supreme Court judge. A well operating judicial system is essential for the administration of justice to be fair, consistent, and effective.

The notion that the rule of law must remain and that an independent judiciary is necessary for the successful operation of constitutionalism has received support from numerous legal scholars, court judges, and jurists. The executive has the upper hand because of how judges and attorneys interpret the law and statutes during judicial proceedings. The aforementioned justifications suggest that the independent judiciary is essential to constitutionalism's smooth operation as the fuel.

Numerous legal scholars, court judges, and jurists have backed the idea that the rule of law must endure and that an independent judiciary is essential to the effective operation of constitutionalism. The judges and attorneys' interpretation of the law and statutes during court processes, giving the executive the upper hand. We can infer from the foregoing arguments that independent judiciary must function as the fuel in order for constitutionalism to run smoothly.