may be that until the recent mass movement against corruption, only socio-
economic inequalities were at the core of the political agenda and thus attracted
the attention of politicians. The dysfunctional response of the executive and the
legislature when handling corruption and environmental pollution has provided
the judiciary an opportunity to fill this vacuum and occupy centre stage:
the Supreme Court in particular has presented itself as an institution that has
low (if not zero) tolerance of corruption and environmental pollution.
iv. conclusion
This chapter has offered a critical review of the most salient constitutional devel-
opments that have taken place in India in the twenty-first century. I have tried to
show how the post- 2000 constitutional developments can be seen as a response to
the three challenges faced by India: socioeconomic inequalities, governance gaps
and environmental pollution. The executive, the legislature and the judiciary have
responded to these challenges in different ways. Whereas the judiciary has directed
its attention to tackling governance gaps and environmental pollution, the other
two wings of government have primarily focused on removing socioeconomic
inequalities. In the absence of noble constitutional values trickling down to the
formulation and implementation of laws and policies, the judiciary has sought to
‘wipe every tear from every eye’. In that process, it has ended up becoming an all-in-
one governance institution tasked with ruling the country on a day-to-day basis.
This course is not only unrealistic but also constitutionally impermissible and
indefensible in a democracy. Rather than continuously usurping the power of the
executive and the legislature, the Indian Supreme Court should help in infusing
accountability in these vital institutions. At the same time, both the legislature and
the executive should discharge their constitutional obligations more seriously.