Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar has held that the Constitution, not Parliament, is supreme, and that judicial review is a constitutionally conferred duty of the judiciary. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India, (2025).

What was the Background of Vishal Tiwari v. Union of India,(2025) Case? 

• The instant matter pertains to a Writ Petition (No. 466/2025) filed by one Vishal Tiwari under Article 32 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India. 
• The petitioner sought initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Respondent No. 4, Nishikant Dubey, who is a Member of Parliament belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party. 
• The petition was filed in response to certain comments made by Respondent No. 4 against the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justice of India. 
• The impugned comments were made in the context of the Supreme Court's intervention in petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. 
• Respondent No. 4 had allegedly stated that the Chief Justice of India was "responsible for all the civil wars happening in India" and that the "Supreme Court is only responsible for inciting religious wars in the country." 
• The petitioner further sought directions to the Union of India and Ministry of Home Affairs to lodge a First Information Report under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against Respondent No. 4. 
• Additionally, the petitioner prayed for directions to the Union of India and Ministry of Home Affairs to issue an advisory to all Chief Secretaries to curb hate and provocative speeches by political parties and their leaders relating to the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, and its hearing before the Supreme Court. 
• The context of these statements appears to be related to ongoing debates about the relationship between different branches of government, specifically regarding Parliamentary supremacy versus Constitutional supremacy. 
• The Vice President, Jagdeep Dhankhar, had previously made statements claiming that "Parliament is supreme" and criticizing the judiciary for allegedly trying to become a "super Parliament." 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court of India determined that the statements made by Respondent No. 4 were highly irresponsible and reflected a desire to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its Judges. 
• The Court observed that the statements demonstrated ignorance about the role of constitutional courts and their duties and obligations under the Constitution. 
• The Court affirmed that in a constitutional democracy, all branches of the State—legislature, executive, and judiciary—act within the framework of the Constitution, which is supreme. 
• The Court emphasized that the Constitution imposes limits and restrictions on the powers vested in all three organs of the State. 
• The Court reiterated that the power of judicial review is expressly conferred upon the judiciary by the Constitution under Articles 32 and 226. 
• The Court stated that when constitutional courts exercise their power of judicial review, they act within the framework of the Constitution, not beyond it. 
• The Court observed that judicial decisions are made in accordance with legal principles, not political, religious, or community considerations. 
• The Court noted that when citizens approach the court seeking judicial review, they do so in furtherance of their fundamental and/or legal rights, and the court's consideration of such prayers fulfills its constitutional duty. 
• The Court held that the impugned statements, prima facie, tended to scandalize and lower the authority of the Supreme Court of India, and had the tendency to interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice. 
• The Court determined that Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which provide exceptions to contempt, were not attracted in the present case. 
• The Court observed that while technically an offence of contempt may have been committed, the exercise of contempt powers is discretionary, and not every commission of contempt need result in punishment. 
• The Court affirmed that courts and judges possess sufficient fortitude to withstand criticism, and that public confidence in judiciary cannot be easily shaken by "absurd statements." 
• The Court emphasized that any attempt to spread communal hatred or engage in hate speech must be dealt with firmly, as such speech erodes tolerance and open-mindedness essential for a multi-cultural society committed to equality.

What is Judicial Review?

• Judicial review is a court proceeding wherein a judge examines the lawfulness of decisions or actions made by public bodies, challenging the process rather than the conclusion. 
• The power of judicial review enables courts to scrutinize the actions of the legislature, executive, and administrative arms to ensure conformity with constitutional provisions. 
• The Supreme Court in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) held judicial review to be a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 
• Judicial review manifests in three forms: review of legislative actions, review of administrative actions, and review of judicial decisions. 
• Article 13 of the Constitution establishes that any law contravening the provisions of Fundamental Rights shall be void, providing a foundation for judicial review. 
• Articles 32 and 226 entrust the Supreme Court and High Courts with the responsibility of protecting fundamental rights through writs and other remedies. 
• There is no direct and express provision in the Constitution empowering courts to invalidate laws, but this power is derived from various constitutional provisions. 
• In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that any provision violating the basic structure of the Constitution is subject to judicial review. 
• Judicial review ensures constitutional supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty in the Indian legal framework. 
• The constitutional validity of legislation or executive orders may be challenged on grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights, exceeding legislative competence, or contravention of constitutional provisions. 
• Article 137 confers special power upon the Supreme Court to review its own judgments or orders. 
• While exercising judicial review, courts examine the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. 
• Judicial review performs dual functions: legitimizing government action and protecting the Constitution against undue encroachment. 
• The concept of checks and balances in the Indian constitutional scheme recognizes judicial review as essential for maintaining constitutional equilibrium. 
• The Supreme Court, through judicial review, serves as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and final arbiter of constitutional disputes.