The Indian Constitution seeks to balance parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy through judicial review, separation of powers and institutional checks and balances. Examine how this balance strengthens Indian democracy and identify the challenges to its effective functioning. (250 words) (GS 2: Indian Polity — Separation of Powers Between Various Organs)

The Indian constitutional system combines parliamentary government with constitutional supremacy. Unlike the British model of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament in India exercises legislative power within constitutional limits, enforced through judicial review and institutional checks.

How the Constitutional Balance Strengthens Democracy

1. Prevents concentration of power: Separation of powers distributes authority among the legislature, executive and judiciary, reducing the risk of arbitrary rule.
2. Protects fundamental rights: Judicial review enables courts to invalidate laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution.

Example: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court established that Parliament cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure.

3. Ensures executive accountability: Parliamentary questions, debates, committees and no-confidence motions subject the executive to legislative scrutiny.
4. Preserves federalism: Constitutional distribution of legislative powers and judicial resolution of Centre–State disputes protect the federal structure.
5. Upholds constitutional supremacy: Independent courts and constitutional bodies help ensure that public authorities act within their legal mandates.

Challenges to Effective Functioning

1. Executive dominance: A strong government majority and party discipline can weaken legislative scrutiny and reduce Parliament’s ability to hold the executive accountable.
2. Judicial delays: Case backlogs and vacancies can undermine timely justice and the practical enforcement of fundamental rights.
3. Institutional friction: Conflicts over judicial appointments, judicial activism and the limits of judicial intervention can strain relations among constitutional organs.
4. Weak legislative deliberation: Disruptions, limited debate and inadequate scrutiny of legislation can reduce the quality of lawmaking.
5. Federal tensions: Disputes over gubernatorial powers, legislative competence and the distribution of resources can weaken cooperative federalism.
6. Accountability gaps: Inadequate transparency and inconsistent enforcement of institutional safeguards can undermine public trust.

The constitutional balance requires neither absolute parliamentary sovereignty nor judicial supremacy. Effective democracy depends on institutional independence combined with mutual accountability, constitutional restraint and meaningful deliberation. Strengthening parliamentary committees, filling judicial vacancies, improving legislative scrutiny and respecting federal conventions can help preserve this balance.