The Role of the Judiciary in Protecting Fundamental Rights
Share on:
Introduction
Fundamental rights are the essential freedoms and protections that every individual is entitled to, simply by virtue of being human. These rights often include core freedoms such as the right to life, liberty, and personal security; freedom of expression; freedom of religion; the right to equality before the law; and the right to a fair trial, among others. They are the very cornerstone of democracy, making it possible for individuals to live in dignity and security, free from unwarranted interference, oppression, or discrimination. These rights are typically enshrined in national constitutions or international human rights agreements and are meant to provide a safeguard against potential abuses of power by the state or other entities. However, the mere existence of these rights in legal documents is not enough to guarantee their protection. It is the judiciary that serves as the primary institution responsible for ensuring that these rights are not only recognized but effectively upheld. It ensures that these rights are not violated and that individuals can access justice. This article explores the role of the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights.
Guardian of the Constitution
The judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution, interpreting its provisions and ensuring they are upheld. This often includes reviewing laws and government actions to determine their constitutionality. When any kind of law or action, by the government, threatens or encroaches upon basic rights, the judiciary comes in to remedy that violation. Now the question arises, How does the judiciary protect fundamental rights? Let us explore:
One of the most significant tools available to the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights is judicial review. Judicial review refers to the process by which courts examine the constitutionality of laws, regulations, and governmental actions. If a law or government act violates an individual's fundamental rights or contradicts the Constitution, the judiciary can strike it down or declare it invalid. For Instance, the Supreme Court of India has played a key role in expanding fundamental rights through its interpretation of the Constitution, including the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right in the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case. Moreover, Judicial review is critical to ensuring that laws are applied fairly and consistently. Courts can intervene to protect rights when legislation is vague, discriminatory, or implemented in a manner that disproportionately affects certain groups, such as minorities, women, or marginalized communities.
Another key aspect of the judiciary’s role in protecting fundamental rights is judicial activism. Judicial activism refers to the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting and expanding fundamental rights, particularly when there are gaps in the law or the legislature is slow to act. Courts may interpret constitutional protections in expanding form above and beyond a strict reading of the law in cases where there's no specific law governing a rights issue, or even when existing laws do not seem adequate. Judicial activism would be important in case the progressive legislation did not come from the legislature following the values of society. The judiciary steps in and further expands and interprets rights under these modern circumstances to protect fundamental rights. For example, in India, the Supreme Court has been particularly active in ensuring the protection of rights for marginalized communities, including women, children, and the LGBTQ+ community. Through judicial activism, the Court has delivered landmark rulings, such as decriminalizing homosexuality in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) case, where it overturned Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relations. This decision reflected the Court's willingness to interpret the Constitution in a manner that promotes human dignity and inclusivity.
In addition, courts also play an essential role in directly enforcing fundamental rights. This is particularly evident in cases where individuals seek redress for violations of their rights, whether by the government or private entities. Article 32(1) of the Indian Constitution states “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights,” whereas Article 226 of the Indian Constitution gives individuals the right to approach the High Courts if their fundamental rights have been violated. Courts provide a venue for aggrieved parties to seek justice and hold wrongdoers accountable. For instance, individuals whose rights are infringed upon, such as victims of unlawful detention, police brutality, or discrimination, can approach the judiciary to seek a remedy. The Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs to the government for enforcing rights. The writs include a writ of Habeas Corpus, a writ of Mandamus, a writ of Prohibition, a writ of Qua-Warranto, and a writ of Certiorari. By taking such actions, the judiciary ensures that individuals can access their rights on time.
Conclusion
The judiciary plays an indispensable role in protecting fundamental rights, ensuring that individuals’ freedoms and liberties are safeguarded against encroachment by the state or private actors. Through judicial review, judicial activism, and enforcement of rights, the judiciary ensures that fundamental rights are respected and upheld. While judicial activism has broadened the scope of these protections, it also underscores the evolving nature of constitutional law in a dynamic society. Ultimately, the independence of the judiciary is vital to maintaining the rule of law, ensuring justice for all, and protecting the core values of human dignity, equality, and freedom in democratic societies.
