The Constitution of India envisages a harmonious relationship between the three branches of the state: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, each functioning within its constitutionally defined domain. The doctrine of separation of powers, accompanied by a system of checks and balances to maintain a harmonious interplay between the three state organs, is central to preserving democratic accountability and institutional integrity. However, many a time, the relationship between the legislature and judiciary has been marred by tensions and confrontations over constitutional interpretation, amendment powers, judicial independence, and institutional supremacy.

While Parliament is vested with the full power to enact legislation within the limits of the Constitution under Articles 245 to 255, the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court (SC), also drives its authority to interpret legislation and enforce constitutional provisions under Articles 124 to 147. But many a time, the limits of legislative competence and the scope of judicial review have come into conflict, giving rise to controversies, contentious debates, and conflict over superior institutional authority. These conflicts often involve questions of parliamentary sovereignty versus judicial supremacy and the interpretation of constitutional provisions. The compelling question is: who is supreme in democracy?

The answer is, as former chief justice M.N. Venkatachaliah aptly observed, “It is imperative that both Parliament and judiciary must act as co-guardians of the Constitution, rather than adversaries seeking institutional supremacy.” But the ongoing contestation over the separation of powers and the limits of judicial review, especially........

© Free Press Journal