Introduction

The foundation of Indian democracy rests on the delicate balance among its three pillars: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. This balance is the soul of the Constitution, which mandates these institutions to function collaboratively while maintaining checks and balances. In recent decades, several landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have sparked a debate: Is the judiciary surpassing the authority of Parliament, effectively becoming a 'Super Parliament'? Or is it merely fulfilling its role as the guardian of the Constitution? This question is not just about constitutional arrangements but also about the future of Indian democracy. This article examines whether the Supreme Court is indeed a 'Super Parliament' or operates within its constitutional limits to protect democratic principles.

Why is the Supreme Court Called a 'Super Parliament'?

The Supreme Court’s powers and proactive role distinguish it from Parliament, occasionally positioning it as a superior authority in specific contexts. The following points elucidate this perception:

1. Supreme Interpreter of the Constitution: The Supreme Court holds the ultimate authority to interpret the Indian Constitution. Under Article 141, its judgments are binding across the nation. This implies that any law passed by Parliament, if found to be in conflict with the Constitution, can be struck down by the judiciary. This power grants the judiciary a supervisory role over Parliament. For instance, in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Court established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine,' ruling that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s fundamental framework. This landmark decision set a clear limit on Parliament’s amendment powers.
2. Judicial Review: The judiciary has the power to review the constitutionality of laws and amendments passed by Parliament. If a law violates fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional. Key examples include:
   • Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court struck down a parliamentary amendment that undermined fundamental rights.
   • Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, though this was later modified by the 24th Constitutional Amendment.
   • Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court invalidated an amendment that sought to shield the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny.
   • Electoral Bonds Case (2024): The Court declared the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional for violating the Right to Information (RTI) and transparency.
3. Protector of Fundamental Rights: Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution allow citizens to approach the Supreme Court or High Courts directly if their fundamental rights are violated. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution. This provision empowers the judiciary to oversee the actions of both Parliament and the Executive. Notable cases include:
   • Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): The Court declared triple talaq unconstitutional, safeguarding Muslim women’s rights.
   • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Court decriminalized homosexuality by striking down parts of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
   • Sabarimala Temple Case (2018): The Court lifted the ban on women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple, promoting gender equality.
4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Since the 1980s, PILs have enabled the judiciary to address societal issues proactively. Any citizen can file a PIL on matters of public interest, leading to significant reforms in various domains:
   • Environmental Protection: Orders banning firecrackers during Diwali and guidelines for industrial waste management.
   • Child Labour Eradication: Bans on child labour in hazardous industries.
   • Police Reforms: Directives for transparency in police recruitment, transfers, and autonomy.
   • Prison Reforms: Measures to improve prison conditions and protect prisoners’ rights.
   • Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Suo motu actions and orders for fair investigations in corruption cases.
5. Judicial Activism: Judicial activism occurs when the judiciary intervenes in the functions of the Legislature or Executive to protect the Constitution. Its objectives include safeguarding fundamental rights, addressing administrative inaction, and ensuring proper implementation of laws. Examples include:
   • Firecracker Ban: Restrictions on firecracker sales and use during Diwali to combat air pollution.
   • Sabarimala Verdict: Ensuring women’s equal religious rights.
   • Section 377 Decriminalization: Protecting the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.
6. Article 142: Power to Do Complete Justice: Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the authority to pass orders necessary for delivering 'complete justice,' even beyond existing legal provisions. This unique power enables the Court to act flexibly in the interest of justice. Key examples:
   • Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Case (2019): The Court awarded the disputed land to Ram Lalla and allocated alternative land to the Muslim side to maintain social harmony.
   • Sahara-SEBI Case: Orders for refunding investors when standard procedures failed.
   • MP/MLA Bribery Immunity Case (2024): The Court ruled that MPs/MLAs accepting bribes for votes or speeches are not immune under Articles 105 or 194.

Recent Developments (2024-2025)

Recent judicial interventions further highlight the Supreme Court’s significant role:

1. Electoral Bonds Scheme (February 2024): The Court struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme, citing violations of transparency and the Right to Information. This decision promoted accountability in political funding and curbed the misuse of black money in elections.
2. Removal of Immunity for MPs/MLAs in Bribery Cases (March 2024): Overruling a 1998 verdict, the Court held that MPs/MLAs accepting bribes for votes or speeches are not entitled to immunity. This landmark ruling strengthened anti-corruption measures and upheld parliamentary dignity.
3. Tamil Nadu v. Governor Case (April 2025): The Court directed governors to act on the advice of elected state governments and clarified that governors lack the constitutional authority to withhold assent to bills re-passed by state legislatures. This reinforced federalism and democratic mandates.

Criticisms and Concerns

While the judiciary’s powers are essential for constitutional protection, their extensive use raises concerns:

1. Judicial Overreach: When the judiciary interferes in policymaking or administrative functions, it is termed judicial overreach. Examples include issuing directives on administrative appointments or policy matters, which fall under the Executive’s domain.
2. Imbalance in Democracy: Frequent invalidation of parliamentary laws can disrupt the balance among the three pillars, raising questions about Parliament’s sovereignty.
3. Potential Misuse of Article 142: The lack of clear boundaries for Article 142’s application raises concerns about its overuse, potentially rendering the judiciary overly powerful or authoritarian.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court is not a 'Super Parliament' but the guardian of the Constitution. It does not stand above Parliament but ensures the supremacy of the Constitution. Its powers, including judicial review, PILs, and Article 142, equip it to protect fundamental rights and uphold democratic values. However, excessive interference risks unsettling the democratic balance. The judiciary must exercise its powers judiciously to maintain a healthy and sustainable democracy, ensuring that it complements rather than overshadows the roles of the Legislature and Executive.