#
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph has said the country's highest court must go beyond issuing warnings when constitutional institutions fail to uphold their responsibilities, asserting that the judiciary, as the Constitution's watchdog, must take effective action whenever democratic safeguards are threatened.
Speaking at a constitutional convention in Kerala amid continuing protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Justice Joseph expressed concern over what he described as declining public confidence in constitutional institutions. He said citizens had a responsibility to defend democracy through informed and peaceful protests when institutions entrusted with protecting constitutional principles failed to discharge their duties.
Drawing an analogy between constitutional courts and watchdogs, the former judge said their responsibility extended beyond identifying threats to ensuring that constitutional protections remained effective. His remarks came against the backdrop of demonstrations demanding Kumar's resignation over allegations concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
𝗦𝗖 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻
Justice Joseph said the Supreme Court's constitutional responsibility required it to intervene effectively when democratic institutions faced threats to their independence and integrity.
"We have heard that famous saying that the barking dog seldom bites. But this watchdog, this guardian (the Supreme Court), is bound to bite also if the barking does not lead to the desired result," he said.
He explained that constitutional courts were entrusted with protecting the Constitution on behalf of the people and were expected to alert citizens whenever constitutional values were threatened.
The former judge said public perceptions about the functioning of constitutional institutions had become a matter of concern, particularly when those institutions appeared unable to respond effectively to challenges involving democratic accountability.
He maintained that constitutional authorities must remain objective in discharging their duties and should not allow political considerations or the identities of individuals raising concerns to influence their responses.
𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆'𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝘂𝗲
Addressing the convention titled "Independence of Election Commission of India – Compromised?", Justice Joseph said growing public dissatisfaction with constitutional institutions had contributed to citizens taking to the streets.
The event was organised by the Indian Association of Lawyers' Kerala unit at the Kerala High Court Chamber Complex.
Referring to socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia's observation about the role of public movements when democratic institutions fail, Justice Joseph said protests could become an important means of defending constitutional principles.
"When the Parliament and courts fail, then the street would come to our rescue," he said, citing Lohia.
He argued that the public perception of institutional credibility had been seriously shaken and that this explained the growing participation in demonstrations.
Justice Joseph emphasised that citizens should respond through peaceful, informed and civil forms of protest rather than violence.
He described such participation as part of the responsibility of citizens to protect democracy when they believed constitutional institutions were failing to fulfil their obligations.
𝗘𝗖'𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘆
Turning to the Election Commission of India, Justice Joseph stressed that its independence was fundamental to the functioning of the country's democratic system.
He said the Chief Election Commissioner represented a constitutional institution rather than merely an individual holding public office, making the integrity of the position particularly important.
The former judge warned that any compromise in the integrity of the person occupying such an office would undermine the independence of the institution itself.
"Once the integrity of the person holding that high office is compromised, then there is no independence, and that is the death knell for democracy in India," he said.
His observations concerned the institutional importance of the Chief Election Commissioner's office and were not a judicial finding that the incumbent had engaged in wrongdoing.
The remarks came amid demonstrations in Delhi against Kumar over allegations of irregularities in the electoral roll revision process. Protesters have demanded his resignation, while the Election Commission's conduct remains the subject of political and legal scrutiny.
𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀
Justice Joseph called for amendments to the Constitution to strengthen safeguards governing the appointment and service conditions of Election Commissioners.
He argued that leaving such matters entirely to parliamentary legislation might not provide sufficient protection against interference with the institution's independence.
"There should be an appropriate amendment to the Constitution itself regarding the appointment and service conditions of the Election Commission, rather than leaving it to Parliament," he said.
The former judge suggested that constitutional provisions directly governing these matters would provide stronger institutional safeguards and reinforce public confidence in the poll body.
He also questioned the distinction between the removal procedures applicable to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.
Justice Joseph argued that officials holding equivalent constitutional status should enjoy comparable safeguards concerning their tenure and removal.
His proposals focused on strengthening the Election Commission's institutional autonomy rather than addressing only the controversies surrounding its current leadership.
𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱
The former Supreme Court judge also expressed concern over divisions within the legal profession and urged lawyers to speak out when constitutional values were threatened.
He recalled the role played by members of the legal fraternity during earlier periods of political and constitutional difficulty, noting that lawyers had historically defended democratic principles across political and communal differences.
Justice Joseph argued that legal professionals carried a particular responsibility because of their knowledge of constitutional rights and institutional safeguards.
He warned that remaining silent in the face of perceived constitutional violations could contribute to greater instability and weaken public confidence in the justice system.
The former judge urged lawyers to examine constitutional questions objectively and resist allowing partisan considerations to determine whether concerns deserved attention.
𝗥𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗖𝗘𝗖 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘀
Justice Joseph's comments came amid a series of demonstrations in Delhi demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The protests have been accompanied by detentions, restrictions on public movement and disruptions to transport access, leading to judicial intervention over the scope of measures imposed by authorities.
Opposition parties and student organisations have questioned whether the restrictions are proportionate to legitimate public order concerns, while police have cited security considerations and the enforcement of prohibitory orders.
The controversy has brought renewed attention to the relationship between the constitutional right to peaceful assembly, the authority of law enforcement agencies and the responsibilities of institutions charged with protecting democratic processes.
Justice Joseph did not suggest that every public allegation against a constitutional institution should be accepted without scrutiny. Instead, he emphasised the importance of institutional independence, objective constitutional oversight and peaceful civic participation.
Concluding his address, the former judge reiterated that the Election Commission was designed to function independently and that its autonomy was an essential constitutional safeguard.
His remarks placed particular emphasis on the responsibility of constitutional courts to ensure that their interventions have practical consequences when democratic protections are at stake.