Various courts in the world have a different view as to who should be given the burden or privilege of preserving the constitution and the laws. The Indian Supreme Court answer to this question is that the Judiciary is the final interpreter of the Constitution and hence the burden is upon them to defend, protect and preserve the constitution. This seems to be a proper response as they have felt their oath of office a duty upon them to preserve and protect the constitution and laws.
Other court such as the American Supreme Court, has a uncertain approach, few judges response to this question was laid as similar to the Indian Supreme Court in the Malbury v. Maddision case, but in the views of Justice Gilbert who gives a political answer to this question says “The constitution and laws can be best preserved by the people of the country.” This approach of the court also seems to be rational, as we have made the constitution and thus the people we select have the authority to make the laws, but will it end all the disputes, can it ever happen that the candidates selected by the democracy, carve their thoughts in the false name of the people. This has not only happened once, but has happened various times and the lawyers are well aware that every time the Court has tried to interpret the constitution, the Parliament has marked its authority and have given a conclusion contrary to the interpretation adopted by the court.
The another question arises that can the court ask the legislature to make laws, the simple answer is ‘no’; though in various cases the approach is not followed, as in Lily Thomas case and Sarla Mudgal case, the court has asked the Parliament to make laws but still there is no response by the Parliament, but more important to that is whether the People can ask the Parliament to make laws or to implement laws. The answer is yes, but the incidental question arises how, the answer to this question was somehow given by the democracy in Hazare's chosen means - fast unto death this means cannot be said to be a litigate means but on the same hand cannot be totally discarded as an illegitimate mean. Thus his chose of action for the implementation and passing of the Anti-Corruption seems to be an attempt to justify the real meaning of the words “we the people of India.” These words which lost their essence for so many years have now gained its flavor by Hazare’s action.
Thus, the author will like to conclude that the era has once more begin where the voice of the people will not pass without being heard by the representatives and will always serve as a check on the legislative action. I would also like to contribute my gratitude to the media without whom it wouldn’t have been a success but by the act of Hazara, makes be praise the lines of my learned Professor Mr. Kumar Kartikaya, that ‘constitution is a representation of the aspiration of the people’ which is now reflected in Hazare’s action.
