Idea of reasonable restrictions, democracy as a threat and protector of democracy itself and those who don't bother to see constitution as the biggest religion in the future

If you pay attention to the headline of the discourse then it can be observed that they pop up separately in our day to day life. There is a convergence of the three with each other. Idea of the reasonable restrictions in interest of the general public has been put into the constitution deliberately. There is a precise selection of each of the word from the sea of social administration and judicial balance. Paramount is the 'interest' of the 'public', but it's paramountcy is traded with the words like 'reasonable restrictions' and 'general' to balance their encroachment (public side view). In other words, it is an attempt to handle the disorder which may prevail if will of the public is given paramountcy (administrator side view). It can be said to be a non-empirical and non-mathematical model of validation. Presently, when you come across TV Series' like Person of Interest and alike, this fundamental method of reasoning seems to be loosening its intensity in the time of big-data which claim to have covered the whole canvas of empirical validation. Nonetheless, this model of reasoning has capacity to move the rationale still in its favour.

When one has to address the case of a very large mass and the time line of the forecasting is very huge, one has to take call on the grounds of theoretically and time tested reasons. The whole idea of putting this precedent is to say that the first argument of the discourse act as an instrument to exercise the democracy in a controlled way. There are several apex court judgements, government policies, departmental notifications and committee recommendations that put this logic to uphold their decision that it is in the interest of the general public.  These practices have immersed into the state apparatus and they are seen as a threat to democracy but its controlling nature saves its existence. However,  litigations, periodic elections of municipal, state or national level, public debates and constructive journalism have acted as instruments to protect the democracy in a major way.

As a result, there has been an increase in social energy which has somehow led us to the demand to walk to the path of reform. In pre-independence time, there were several individual figures and organizations who caused sweeping changes in mindset of people. They were of a nature of being private initiatives. This list contains names of Kabir, Narayan Guru, Rajaram Mohun Roy and so son. However, this precedent has been majorly taken over by the state apparatus. Guarantor and final interpreter of the constitution Supreme Court through its judicial activism, parliament through its legislations and executive through their implementation mechanism have sequentially increased their role as a guardian of society. More importantly, this guardianship has not been forced but it has been established organically by all three pillars. 

It is to be observed that the common thread which bind all three pillars is the constitution. Now, it has gained a level of significance that majority of the issues are now attempted to be seen through the lens of constitution. This inflation of stature of the constitution and its relevance in the decision making process of the government as well as its natural presence as foundation of public debates make it the next religion of India.