India's judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a pivotal role in safeguarding fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. These rights, forming the bedrock of individual liberties, are crucial for a democratic society. The judiciary's role in interpreting, enforcing, and expanding the scope of fundamental rights has been instrumental in shaping India's constitutional landscape and ensuring the protection of citizens' rights and freedoms.

Judicial Review and Interpretation

One of the primary ways the judiciary safeguards fundamental rights is through the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, has the authority to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions. This power allows the judiciary to strike down laws or government actions that violate fundamental rights.

Through a process of judicial interpretation, the courts have elucidated the meaning and scope of fundamental rights. Landmark cases, such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution. This doctrine prevents the Parliament from amending the Constitution in a manner that alters its basic structure, which includes fundamental rights. The judiciary, through its interpretative role, has thus ensured that the essence of fundamental rights remains inviolable.

Writ Jurisdiction and Remedies

The judiciary exercises its authority to protect fundamental rights through writ jurisdiction. Writs such as Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto provide individuals with a direct recourse to the courts for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. For instance, Habeas Corpus ensures protection against illegal detention, and Certiorari is a remedy against judicial or quasi-judicial decisions that violate fundamental rights.

Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The court held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable. This interpretation broadened the protective umbrella of Article 21, incorporating principles of natural justice and due process.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

The judiciary has been proactive in entertaining Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to address violations of fundamental rights. PIL is a mechanism through which individuals or organizations can approach the court on behalf of those who are unable to do so themselves. This has been particularly significant in cases involving marginalized and vulnerable groups.

The Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case is an illustrative example of the judiciary's role in protecting fundamental rights through PIL. The Supreme Court, responding to a PIL, laid down guidelines to address sexual harassment at the workplace. This not only protected the rights of women but also established a framework for the legislative and executive branches to enact appropriate laws and policies.

Expanding the Horizon of Rights

Over the years, the judiciary has expanded the horizon of fundamental rights to include new rights and interpretations in response to societal changes. The Right to Privacy, for example, was recognized as a fundamental right in the landmark judgment of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). The court held that privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Similarly, in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, affirming the right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty. These judicial pronouncements have not only reflected changing societal norms but have also contributed to a more inclusive and rights-centric legal framework.

Ensuring Social Justice: Affirmative Action and Reservations

The judiciary has been actively involved in cases related to social justice, particularly concerning affirmative action and reservations. While fundamental rights guarantee equality, they also recognize the need for special provisions to uplift historically marginalized communities.

Cases like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) have seen the judiciary striking a delicate balance between ensuring reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) while avoiding excessive reverse discrimination. The courts have played a vital role in defining the extent and limitations of reservations to ensure that they fulfill the objective of social justice without violating the essence of equality.

Checks and Balances on Executive Action

The judiciary acts as a check on executive actions that may infringe upon fundamental rights. In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), commonly known as the Habeas Corpus case during the Emergency, the Supreme Court, in a controversial decision, initially held that even during an Emergency, the state could suspend the right to move the courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

However, this decision was later reconsidered and overruled in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The judiciary, through its reconsideration, asserted its role as a check on arbitrary executive actions, emphasizing the primacy of fundamental rights even during challenging times.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights is widely acknowledged, there have been criticisms and challenges. The backlog of cases in Indian courts often results in delayed justice, impacting the effective enforcement of fundamental rights. Additionally, judicial activism has faced criticism for allegedly overstepping its bounds and encroaching on the domains of the executive and legislative branches.

The doctrine of separation of powers, a fundamental feature of the Constitution, requires a delicate balance between the three branches of government. Critics argue that an overly active judiciary might disrupt this balance, and there is an ongoing debate on the appropriate extent of judicial intervention in matters of policy and governance.