RESEARCH WRITING

TOPIC:-ROLE OF SUPREME COURT IN MODERN TIMES, IN PROTECTING

THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

Seventy one years ago the Supreme Court of India started functioning from the
Chambers of Princes in the Parliament House where the previous Federal Curt
of India sat from 1937 to 1950.Supreme Court at the apex of the Indian
Judiciary is the highest authority to uphold the constitution of India to protect
1
1
1
the rights and liberties of the citizens and to uphold the value of rule of law.
Hence it is known as the ‘Guardian of our Constitution’.

SUPREME COURT AS THE GUARDIAN OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Supreme Court discharges an extra ordinary role in its relation to the
fundamental rights. In the first pace it acts as the protector and guardian of
these rights. In the second place it acts as the interpreter of fundamental rights
and in the third pace it has been seeking to integrate directive principles with
fundamental rights The Supreme Court being the guardian of our fundamental
rights underlines this role of the court through article 32(1) which reads:
The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by this article. The Constitution makers made the
right of a citizen to move to the Supreme Court under article 32, and claim an
appropriate writ against the unconstitutional infringement of his fundamental
rights, itself a fundamental right.

The protective role of the Supreme Court, has in course of time manifested
itself in the following ways, namely (a) declaration of a law as unconstitutional
in case it comes in conflict with a fundamental right; (b) prohibition on an
individual from bartering away his fundamental rights; (c) non-amenability of
the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights; (d) protection
of its own protective function from being demented either by legislation or
constitutional amendment.

2
2
2
 ROLE OF SUPREME COURT IN PROTECTING
THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

In the initial period, the Supreme Court adopted a conservative approach, by

reading only the literal text of the Constitution, treating each fundamental
right as a separate chapter. But now while considering the role of Supreme
court in modern times, the court has started to interpret the articles more
deeply and their analysis on different fundamental rights have gone far beyond
the literal word of the law and have been examining the legislative purpose of
the law more closely. This new found fascination for JUDICAL ACTIVISM
acquired its own energy with passage of time. During this process the Supreme
Courts’ attitude towards protecting the rights of the people especially towards
Article 21 has been evolving. The 1980s and 1990s saw a dominance of Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) and social justice matters in court.
The Supreme Court pioneered the development of Locus Standi by way of PIL.
The Supreme Court has given an extensive interpretation to articles 32 and 226
of the Constitution. Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme
Court, by appropriate proceedings, for the enforcement of the fundamental
rights enumerated in the Constitution. PIL allowed petitions to be filed by
associations, lawyers, journals and social workers for the enforcement of
rights. By entertaining PIL’s, the court has protected the rights of women’s,
workers, prisoners and so on.
S.P.Gupta vs Union of India (1) was the first case decided by the Supreme
Court by way of PIL. But the first most important case in which the question of
making justice available to the poor was debated in the Asiad Case (2). The
People's Union for Democratic Rights, a voluntary non-political organization,
formed for the purpose of protecting democratic rights, in a letter to Bhagwati,
J, of the Supreme Court complained of violation of several labour laws by the
contractors. The letter was treated as a writ petition ad the court directed the
Government to see that various labour laws are followed by the contractors
3
3
3
who are engaged by the government for the construction works of various
projects. The court here by recognising writ petition helped the poor to
recognise their fundamental rights.

With the court dealing with various cases every time it has tried to protect, the
rights of the people through landmark cases. Some of the recent situation
where the Supreme Court have tried to protect the rights of the people
include:-
1. NALSA vs Union of India (3)
Supreme Court in its decision in this case held that the transgender should be
treated as “third gender” for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under
Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State
Legislature and the transgender have the right to decide their self-identified
gender. The Supreme Court further instructed the Centre and State
Governments to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male,
female or as third gender and to treat them as socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of
admission in educational institutions and for public appointments. Centre and
State Governments should take proper measures to provide medical care to
transgender in the hospitals and also provide them separate public toilets and
other facilities.
By this decision of the Supreme Court they got their freedom to choose their
gender identification. Gender identification has become a very essential
component which is required for enjoying civil rights. It is only with this
recognition that many rights attached to the sexual recognition as ‘third
gender’ would be available to this community more meaningfully.

2. Justice K.S.Puttuswamy vs Union of India (4)

Whether right to privacy was a fundamental right was questioned before the
court on the ground of issuance of Aadhar Cards. Retired Justice.Puttuswamy
challenged the constitutionality of the Aadhar procedure as it violated a
person’s privacy. The Supreme Court stated in its judgment that the privacy is
to be an integral component of Part III of the Indian Constitution, which lays
4
4
4
down the fundamental rights of the citizens. The Supreme Court also stated
that the state must carefully balance the individual privacy because at any cost
fundamental rights cannot be given or taken away by law, and all laws and acts
must abide by the constitution. The Court also declared that the right to
privacy is not an absolute right just like other rights it also has certain
restrictions.
Supreme Court once again in its recent judgement has shown how it protects
the fundamental rights of its people by creating a legal framework for privacy
protections in India. This judgment established that privacy is a fundamental
inalienable right, intrinsic to human dignity and liberty under article 21 of the
constitution of India. The judgment gives a way for the decriminalization of
homosexuality in India in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (5) and
abolishing the provisions of the crime of Adultery under in the case of Joseph
Shine v. Union of India.

3. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (6)

Under Indian Law Section 497 of Indian Penal Code makes adultery a criminal
offence and prescribes a punishment, imprisonment up to five years and fine.
The offence of adultery under Section 497 is very limited. The offence is
committed only by a man who had sexual intercourse with the wife of another
man without the latter’s consent or connivance. The wife is not punishable for
being an adulterous or even as an abettor. The wife cannot file a case of
adultery if it was being committed by her husband.
The constitutional validity of Section 497 read with Section 198(2) of Criminal
procedure code was questioned. The supreme court in its decision struck down
as being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and Section
198(2) of Criminal procedure code which contains the procedure for
prosecution under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code shall be
unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offense of
Adultery under Section 497.

5
5
5
In the 21st century where equality have taken over the world. It was necessary
to get rid of Adultery as it is not only discriminated between men and women
but also demeans the dignity of a woman. This judgement protected the
women by the fact that husband are no longer there master

4. Shayara Bano vs Union of India (7)

The Supreme Court took a landmark decision on the constitutional validity of
“Talaq-e-Biddat” popularly known as “Triple Talaq”. in this form of divorce,
where a Muslim man can instantly divorce his wife after repeating the word
“talaq” in one sitting, without any state intervention.
The Supreme Court laid down in its judgment holding the practice of Triple
Talaaq unconstitutional. This decision of the Supreme Court restored the trust
that the common people possesses for the institution of Judiciary. The
judgment proved that the democratic notions such as equality, liberty etc.
would not bend down against any philosophy even if it is a religion. The courts
finally brought justice to those women who have been a victim of Triple Talaq.
Men after enjoying and extracting pleasure out of women used to abandon
them easily by the virtue of Triple Talaq. Now, after the pronouncement of the
judgment the situation has changed and made such incidents impossible.

SUO MOTO COGNIZANCE

The supreme court have also protected its citizen by a Suo Moto Cognizance
when it receives information about the violation of rights and breach of duty
through media and third party notification.Suo Moto actions by Indian courts
are reflection of judicial activism.
Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court took Suo Moto cognizance
for various matters in protecting its people.

6
6
6
1. Suo Motu cognizance of COVID-19 Migrant Crisis
Case: In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers
Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the problems faced by the
migrant labourers who have been stranded in different parts of the country.
The solicitor general was asked to appraise the court on the steps taken by the
government to address the migrant crisis.
The court made it clear as per its order, migrant workers stranded amid the
COVID-19 pandemic were mandatory required to be transported to their
hometown within 15 days.

Our Supreme Court has most of the times tried to interpret the constitution
positively and creatively. The law must march in tune with changing ideas
and ideologies in a changing society. Supreme Court must take cognizance of
the changing society with developing concepts and ideologies in the changing
times. Just like any other institution Supreme Court has its own merits and
demerits ,but in most of the cases the supreme court have tried to protect
the rights of its citizens and will sooner recognise the missteps it has taken
and correct them sooner or later.

END NOTES
1. AIR 1982 SC 149.
2. People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Others V Union of India &
Others AIR 1982 SC 1473
3. Writ Petition (Civil) No.604 Of 2013, AIR 2014 SC 1863
7
7
7
4. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, (2017) 10 SCC 1
5. AIR 2018 SC 4321
6. 2018 SC 1676
7. AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)

8
8
8
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
SITES REFERRED
1. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/
2. http://lawtimesjournal.in/
3. https://lawlex.org/
4. https://www.barandbench.com/

ARTICLE
1. The Supreme Court and Fundamental Rights by M.P.Jain

9
9
9