The words ‘Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting’, from the Bible (Daniel:5:27), were used by Sir Winston Churchill in 1938 to criticise Neville Chamberlain, the then British prime minister, for signing the shameful Munich Pact with Hitler. The same words could aptly be used for the Indian Supreme Court too, for its recent dismal, distressing, disheartening and discomfiting performances in repeatedly failing to protect the fundamental rights of the Indian people – which is its sacred and solemn duty under the constitution. The constitution, promulgated in 1950, has a part (Part 3) containing certain ‘fundamental rights’ of the people. These fundamental rights incorporated the theory of the English political philosopher John Locke in his second treatise on civil government (1690) that every citizen had certain ‘natural’ rights, which even the king could not violate. This theory was the basis of the Bill of Rights in the US constitution, as well as the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 by the French National Assembly during the French Revolution. Under the Indian constitution, these fundamental rights were rights which even the legislature or executive could not legally violate. But who was to ensure that they were not violated? This was the job of the judiciary, which was meant to be independent of the legislature or executive. The Supreme Court and high courts were set up to act inter alia as guardians of the constitution and protectors of the fundamental rights of the people, and their judges take a solemn oath to uphold the constitution, which would include Part 3.