Judiciary both guardian & moral conscience of Constitution: CJI Gavai

CJI Gavai said courts are not merely adjudicatory bodies that resolve disputes between parties but are “vital organs of constitutional governance that safeguard the rule of law, protect fundamental rights and ensure that every exercise of power remains accountable to constitutional principles”.

“The judiciary stands as both a guardian and a moral conscience of the Constitution. Its role goes beyond interpretation. It embodies the living spirit of constitutionalism by maintaining the delicate balance among the organs of the State,” he said, adding that “courts, therefore, ought to be guided by the spirit of the Constitution and by the vision of the people who framed it”.

Despite differences in historical context, the constitutional frameworks of both India and Bhutan “share a remarkable commonality”, said the CJI. “They place the citizen at the very heart of their governance,” he said, adding that “courts must thus interpret and apply the constitutional text in a manner that breathes life into its ideals of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity”.

The CJI said the Supreme Court of India “has, over the last 75 years… consistently interpreted fundamental rights expansively, upholding the Constitution as a shield against arbitrariness, discrimination and abuse of power”.

He pointed out that “as new challenges emerge and societies evolve, the legislature may often feel that the Constitution needs to be amended to reflect contemporary realities. This tension between continuity and change, between constitutional permanence and adaptability, was at the very heart of India’s constitutional journey during the first two decades after the Constitution came into force”.

Tracing the evolution of India’s jurisprudence through various judicial decisions, he said the approach of the court “compels the State to translate constitutional guarantees into tangible actions, thereby affirming that rights are meaningful only when they are enforceable, accessible and capable of shaping the lived experience of the citizen”.

Explaining the SC’s approach to PILs and how they played their role in electoral reforms, the CJI said: “These decisions collectively reinforce the principle that a democracy thrives not merely on the act of voting but on an informed, empowered citizenry, and that constitutional governance demands transparency.”

The CJI pointed out that courts often influence the direction of public policy. Citing the example of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, he said it was the result of the Supreme Court judgment recognising Right to Education as implicit in the right to life and dignity.

The CJI said he is “inspired to see that many principles nurtured through judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court find resonance in Bhutan’s constitutional text”.