Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai on Saturday said that a constitutional democracy was not a system in which one institution exercised unchecked authority, but a carefully calibrated arrangement in which power was distributed, structured and limited.
Speaking at the 19th Sujata Jayawardena Memorial Oration organised by the University of Colombo in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Justice Gavai said that in the Indian constitutional scheme, no organ of the State, including Parliament, was supreme in any absolute sense. The only supremacy recognised by the Constitution was its own, he said, adding that all institutions derived their authority from the Constitution and remained bound by its limitations.
Referring to the speech delivered by Dr BR Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, the former CJI said each organ of the State had its own domain and was supreme within that domain only to the extent permitted by the Constitution.
Justice Gavai further spoke about the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary, stating that it was not always adversarial but also collaborative, particularly when judicial innovation identified constitutional gaps and Parliament responded by institutionalising those principles within a democratic framework. He also observed that clashes between Parliament and the judiciary over the years had led to the evolution of constitutional safeguards and doctrines aimed at managing such institutional conflicts.
The former CJI said the Indian experience showed that the authority of Parliament, like that of other institutions, was balanced by constitutional limitations and restraints. According to him, this was how a modern constitutional democracy was expected to function, and Sri Lanka, too, appeared to reflect a similar trajectory.
All three organs of the State must operate within the boundaries assigned to them by the Constitution for a constitutional democracy to function effectively. At the same time, a certain degree of friction among the institutions was inevitable, he noted, adding that the constitutional meaning was tested, refined and sustained through such friction. Within this framework, the judiciary played a crucial role as a constitutional watchdog responsible for ensuring that the exercise of power by the legislature and executive remained within constitutional limits, he added.
Justice Gavai, however, cautioned that the judiciary must remain conscious of its own institutional boundaries. Judicial review must not slide into judicial overreach, while judicial activism should not become judicial adventurism, he concluded.
