The Constitution Conundrum: Guardian of Rights or Tool of Power?

The Constitution Conundrum: Guardian of Rights or Tool of Power?

The sanctity of law can be maintained only so long as it is the expression of the will of the people.

No constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it must be interpreted by men. And if the ultimate power to interpret a constitution is given to the government’s own Supreme Court, then the inevitable tendency is for the Court to continue to place its imprimatur on ever-broader powers for its own government.

Imagine a game where one team writes the rulebook and then gets to decide what those rules mean during play. That’s what happens when a government’s own Supreme Court interprets the constitution—a document meant to limit its power.

No constitution can interpret or enforce itself; it relies on people, and when those people are part of the government, they tend to bend it in favor of more power for themselves.

This is why the Indian people must face a harsh truth: mere paper cannot protect their freedom. The sanctity of law holds only when it reflects the will of the people, not the whims of those in charge.

---

The Power of Interpretation

During a terrible flood, Rajesh Desai, the richest man in the village, promised God that he would sell his precious gold chain for just one paisa to the village temple if he survived.

Surviving the flood, he consulted his lawyer friend Mohan about fulfilling the vow. On the appointed day, Rajesh called the village priest forward and announced he would sell the gold chain for one paisa—but with one condition: the temple must also purchase his steel bracelet, which he would sell for a whole twenty thousand rupees.

Listening to this, the priest’s hope vanished. Rajesh had technically kept his vow while ensuring he lost nothing.

This story mirrors how constitutions work. Just as beauty lies in the beholder’s eyes, the meaning of a constitution depends on its interpreter. Like a poem or holy text, it can be read in many ways, shaped by the interests of those holding the power to define it.

---

Interpretation and the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution promises to protect the people from the government, yet it hands the power of interpretation to the government’s own courts. Imagine suing your neighbor for stealing your land, only to find out he’s the judge. Justice demands no conflict of interest, but here, the entity meant to be restrained—the government—controls the reins.

This flaw becomes starkly clear in Article 359(1):

"Where a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, the President may by order declare that the right to move any court for the enforcement of such of the rights conferred by Part III (except articles 20 and 21) as may be mentioned in the order and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the rights so mentioned shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation is in force or for such shorter period as may be specified in the order."

This article states that during a state of emergency, the President can suspend the right to seek court protection for most fundamental rights listed in Part III—except Articles 20 and 21. Article 20 shields against unfair convictions, while Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty.

A common person, or even a legal scholar, might read this and assume that even in an emergency, they could still turn to the courts if their core rights were threatened. The word “except” seems to carve out a safeguard.

Yet, in the 1976 case ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. By a 4-1 majority, it declared that even Articles 20 and 21 could be suspended during an emergency, despite the explicit exclusion in Article 359(1).

The court—made up of judges appointed by the government or selected by their peers among the ruling elite—chose an interpretation that expanded state power, not people’s rights. This shows how the government’s control over interpretation can turn a constitution’s promises into empty words.

---

A Global Pattern

This isn’t unique to India. History reveals a pattern where Supreme Courts, tasked with upholding constitutions, often side with elites over the common people:

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857, U.S.): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be citizens, stripping them of constitutional protections and entrenching slavery’s power.

Persons Case (1928, Canada): Canada’s Supreme Court initially decided that women were not “persons” under the law, barring them from the Senate until a higher court reversed it.

In each case, the courts—extensions of the ruling class—interpreted their constitutions to favor those already in power, not the people they were meant to serve.

---

The Real Solution: Power in the People’s Hands

No constitution has consistently stopped governments from devouring the freedoms of their people. Paper promises are weak without real, tangible power to back them up. History teaches us that liberty depends on systems that let the people directly control their destiny. Here’s what works:

1. Voting:

It’s not flawless, but it’s our voice. Expand it—let’s directly elect everyone from sarpanch to Supreme Court judges, cutting out the middlemen.

2. Referendums:

For big decisions or constitutional changes, let the people vote directly. No elites in Delhi should have the final say.

3. Right to Recall:

If an elected official fails us, we should boot them out mid-term. Accountability must be real.

4. Multi-Elections:

Elect as many roles as possible—mayors, district collectors, high court judges. The more we choose, the less they control.

5. Jury System:

Put ordinary citizens in courtrooms to decide cases. Justice by the people beats justice by the elite.

6. Right to Bear Arms:

Controversial, yes, but it’s a raw check on tyranny. Power isn’t just ballots—it’s the ability to stand up.

These aren’t abstract ideals; they’re practical tools that shift authority from paper and palaces to the hands of the people.

The Final Word

A constitution is not a shield if its interpretation is left to those it is meant to restrain. The Indian people must wake up to this truth: their rights are protected only when they wield power themselves. Without real, enforceable mechanisms to keep governments in check, constitutional promises will remain just that—promises.

If freedom is to be more than ink on paper, the people, not the government, must be its true guardians.