Guardians of the Republic: Judicial Review and Constitutional Morality in a Changing India

1. We the people and Constitution

The heart of our Constitution beats in the words ‘We the People of India,’ showing power comes from ordinary folks like us. It shields basic rights, standing firm when government steps over line; what matters most is guarding personal dignity alongside real-life needs, aiming to help as many thrive as possible. Laws aren’t just rules – they’re tools meant to keep life safe and fair within a decent society, built on values laid out in the Indian Constitution.

2. Effect of Colonial Rule and Freedom Struggle

In 1750, India made nearly a quarter of global manufactured goods – about 24.5%. At that time, the UK produced just 1.9%, the US even less at 0.1%. But by 1900, things flipped sharply. India’s portion dropped to only 1.7%. Meanwhile, the UK jumped to 62%, the US reached 23.6%. This big shift? Largely due to British control over India. That experience pushed leaders to draft a strong constitution once freedom came. It set up how India would govern itself. Its core goals, values and promises are found in key parts – the opening statement, basic rights, and guiding duties for the government. This hidden moral heart – the spirit of the constitution – guides each ruling, shapes limits on power, also protects a person’s right to live with respect. The courts have built constitutional understanding using words, legal logic, alongside outside insights; they uncovered key principles called the ‘basic structure’ while keeping them safe from changes lawmakers might push.

The Indian courts haven’t just stuck to words on paper – they’ve started focusing more on values like fairness and change over time. In the Puttaswamy case from 2017, privacy was seen not just as a legal idea but tied deeply to human worth. Then in 2018, the Navtej Singh Johar decision tossed out an old law that targeted queer people – showing how freedom matters at a personal level. These moments prove that core parts of the Constitution aren’t frozen; they grow alongside society. Even after economic shifts opened up new pressures, this underlying framework still guides what justice means today.

3. Rule of Law against Law of Rule

All rules in India gain power from the Constitution – so it stands above everything else. It sets what law means, showing that laws should change over time. If a rule hasn’t been used in ages, the idea of “disuse” might apply. We’ve got one connected court setup handling both central and local laws; since we follow common law traditions, judges can shape legal outcomes using rulings. The idea of fairness under law lives in the Preamble’s values along with rights listed in Part III.

The Constitution spells out what counts as a State, along with all actions taken by it – whether crafting laws or putting them into effect. These moves can’t clash with constitutional rules, either openly or behind the scenes. Should they do so, anyone harmed – or someone driven by public interest – can challenge them via Article 32 or 226. Judges hold strong authority to toss out such invalid laws and offer help where needed. Over time, fairness and lack of random choices have shaped how the system works. That sense of balance acts like an invisible line stitched throughout the nation’s founding document.

In Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 4 SCC 1, India’s top court gave a detailed look at Article 19(1)(a), showing how it’s changed as communication tools evolved. It pointed out that speaking freely isn’t just talking – it includes sharing thoughts by speech, print, images, or online platforms. This right, the judges said, should grow with new tech instead of staying stuck in old ways. They compared it to what was decided earlier in Shreya Singhal v. In the Union of India case, the judges said limits on free expression should fit tightly within just those eight reasons listed in Article 19(2) – no extra rules sneaked in using “public good” as an excuse. What’s more, the ruling pointed out that rights from Articles 19 and 21 might apply even when private individuals or groups are involved, so basic freedoms like dignity and autonomy aren’t left unprotected where powerful people act outside government roles.

Folks can speak freely – but only if they also follow their civic responsibilities, keeping things equal, fair, and sensible. It’s not just lawmakers or leaders who have to stick to these ideas; everyone involved in running society does too. Since more decisions and talks now happen online or via tech, those same rules need to shape how choices are made. That way, no matter what kind of government effort it is, it stays balanced, avoids random outcomes, and honors people’s worth – just like Article 14 requires.

In this situation, it’s key to look at Constitutional law – so you grasp how core ideas actually work when government steps out of line. The Supreme Court once said in Minerva Mills that just three parts of the Constitution guard freedom from total control: Articles 14, 19, and 21. While Tagore dreamed of a nation waking into liberty, these act as barriers against chaos. But Article 31C wiped out two corners of what was called a golden triangle. That setup used to guarantee fairness through basic rights, making sure equality and personal freedom weren’t weakened. Without those checks, the pledge in the Preamble – to build a fair society – loses its real bite.

One of the popular maxims across the world is “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. In E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu the Supreme Court for the first time gave a new dimension to the interpretation of law, and transformed the traditional Reasonable Classification theory under Article 14 into the doctrine of anti-arbitrariness. The Supreme Court has applied the said doctrine of anti- arbitrariness against the state actions in various cases 14 and thus rendered substantive equality. Added to this idea, in the case of Maneka Gandhi’s, the Supreme Court gave a land mark ruling and applied America’s “Due process of law” clause to be part and parcel of “Procedure established by law” under Article 21 and held that “the procedure must be fair and the law must not violate other fundamental rights”. So, our courts, right from the start, packed with top legal thinkers, have done an excellent job shaping how we understand the Constitution to make it work well. Because of this, the idea that everyone follows the law shows the real heart of the Constitution – proof that laws earn their strength through fairness, never through control.

4. Conclusion

In short, it’s regular folks who matter most – not government bodies; the legal system sets up ways to receive what you’re entitled to by law.

In today’s connected world, where private groups hold real influence inside government systems, protecting constitutional rights matters more than ever. Because of shifting global dynamics, old legal ideas must adapt – especially how we see duty and role when it comes to companies acting like public authorities. When such organizations break basic rights, their growing power demands clearer rules. The National Commission looking into the Constitution noted that certain private players doing key public work should count as part of the ‘State’ if what they do deeply affects people’s lives Basic Structure means nothing on its own – better to focus on how it can serve public good. Courts should aim to broaden rights, not shrink them through legal tweaks. Real democracy happens when everyone shares power and duty. It turns fake when only powerful groups chase control. That’s what the Constitution truly aims for.

The heart of the Constitution lives in what people together believe. Not just freedom, but also when it’s balanced by limits – this ongoing talk shapes a nation. Power without check fades trust, yet fairness keeps things steady over time. So, judges shouldn’t just follow rules – they should ask what those rules aim to protect. Justice isn’t fixed in stone, rather it grows from values like equal treatment and basic rights. Every ruling then becomes part of something bigger – the true core behind constitutional life.

Bibliography 

1. Prajwal G, Seshadripuram Law College, Bengaluru, Karnataka State Law University.
2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII (4 November 1948), at p.38 
3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. XI, 25 November 1949
4. S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits, Oxford University Press (2002)
5. Julie Cohen, Between Truth and Power: The Legal Constructions of Informational Capitalism, Oxford University Press (2019)
6. Chinmayi Arun, “Rebalancing Regulation of Speech,” Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 14 (2018)
7. Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution (Harper Collins, 2019), Chapter 4
8. Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
9. Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1
10. Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625
11. Kaushal Kishor v State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 4 SCC 1
12. Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
13. E P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3
14. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
15. Constitution of India, Preamble
16. Constitution of India, art 14
17. Constitution of India, art 19(1)(a)
18. Constitution of India, art 19(2)
19. Constitution of India, art 21
20. Constitution of India, art 31C
21. Constitution of India, art 32
22. Constitution of India, art 226
23. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Government of India 2002)