Court need to uphold the rights of citizens

Context: The recent approach of the Supreme Court involving the liberty of citizens in cases related to Article 370, CAA, and ongoing migrant crisis diminishes the credibility of the court as the sentinel of constitutionalism.

Importance of the Supreme Court:

• Progressive jurisprudence of human rights: The Right to Life with dignity (Article 21), stands at the pinnacle in the hierarchy of rights through an expansive judicial interpretation.

• The bridge between life and law: Exercising their judicial review jurisdiction to account on the touchstone of constitutional values and distrust of concentrated power.

• Landmark pronouncements include Maneka Gandhi (1978), SR Bommai (1994), Nagaraj (2006), IR Coelho (2007), National Legal Services Authority (NALSA, 2014), Nambi Narayanan (2017), Puttaswamy (2017), Navtej Johar (2018).

• Upholder of constitutionalism: Acting as a counter-majoritarian institution, mandated by its constitutive charter to act as a bulwark against infraction of the citizens’. 

Abnegation of Responsibilities by the court:

• Passive Approach: in ensuring the enforcement of its decisions has robbed the judgments of their efficacy in advancing constitutional goals. 

• Inconsistency of the court in exercising its ‘nudge’ or ‘suggestive’ jurisdiction

• Neglecting own rulings: The court chose not to carry to its logical conclusion it's own ruling in DK Basu case (1978) that torture was a ‘wound in the soul’.

• Reluctant libertarian response: 

• Sidelining opposition: Refusing PIL mainly because the petitioner is office-bearer of the opposition party is inexplicable. 

• Political parties are integral to parliamentary democracy and cannot be sidelined from supporting causes of public interest, consistent with the court’s enabling rulings on locus standi. 

Apex court as a sentinel of Constitutionalism

• Ensure and uphold the supremacy of the Constitution (Navtej Johar). 
• Remind the key duty holders about their role in the working of the Constitution (Manoj Narula, 2014).
• To protect human dignity, and to facilitate it by taking positive steps in that direction (M Nagraj).
• In a contest between principle and power, it is expected to uphold the former.
• It must reassure the nation of its capacity and commitment to constitutionalism that would advance the nation’s ideals.

Way Forward: The court must stand out for the objectivity, consistency, and intellectual integrity of its judgments to vindicate its role as arbiter of constitutional conscience and enlist for it the ‘uncoerced allegiance’ of people who cherish their freedom and dignity.