Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Judicial overreach, often debated in Indian public discourse, refers to the judiciary exceeding its constitutional limits and encroaching upon the powers of the executive and legislature. While judicial activism is considered essential for safeguarding fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law, its excessive exercise can disrupt the balance of power. The assertion that judicial overreach is largely a consequence of ineffective executive stems from the premise that executive failures – such as policy paralysis, delays in decision-making, and lack of effective implementation – create governance vacuums that the judiciary is compelled to fill. Recent instances like the Supreme Court’s intervention in pollution control in Delhi and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic highlight this dynamic.
Causes of Judicial Overreach Linked to Executive Inefficiency
Several factors demonstrate how an ineffective executive can lead to judicial overreach:
- Policy Vacuum & Legislative Inertia: When the executive fails to formulate clear policies or the legislature is slow to enact necessary laws, the judiciary steps in to provide guidance or direction. For example, the Supreme Court’s directions on issues like workplace sexual harassment (Vishaka Guidelines, 1997) arose from the absence of comprehensive legislation at the time.
- Executive Delay & Non-Implementation: Prolonged delays in executive action, particularly in matters of public importance, often force the judiciary to intervene. The ongoing issue of air pollution in Delhi-NCR, where repeated executive failures to implement effective measures led to the Supreme Court issuing numerous directives, exemplifies this.
- Lack of Accountability & Transparency: When the executive lacks accountability and transparency, it can lead to arbitrary decision-making. This prompts judicial review and, in some cases, intervention. The 2G spectrum allocation case (2012) is a prime example where the Supreme Court cancelled licenses due to alleged irregularities and lack of transparency in the allocation process.
- Ineffective Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: A weak and overburdened executive dispute resolution system forces citizens to approach the courts for redressal, increasing the judicial workload and potentially leading to overreach. The pendency of cases in various tribunals and the slow progress of administrative law cases contribute to this.
- Failure to Protect Fundamental Rights: When the executive fails to adequately protect fundamental rights, the judiciary is obligated to intervene. The Supreme Court’s interventions in cases related to custodial torture, extrajudicial killings, and illegal detentions demonstrate this role.
Arguments Against the Statement – Other Contributing Factors
While executive inefficiency is a significant contributor, attributing judicial overreach solely to it is an oversimplification. Other factors play a crucial role:
- Judicial Activism: A proactive judiciary, committed to social justice and fundamental rights, may independently expand its role even in the absence of executive failures. This is often driven by a desire to address systemic issues and protect vulnerable sections of society.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The liberal interpretation of locus standi through PIL has enabled greater judicial intervention in matters of public importance, sometimes leading to overreach.
- Weak Legislative Oversight: A weak legislature, unable to effectively scrutinize executive actions, allows the executive to operate with less accountability, indirectly contributing to judicial intervention.
- Ambiguity in Constitutional Provisions: Certain constitutional provisions are open to interpretation, providing the judiciary with the space to expand its role.
Illustrative Examples
The following table illustrates instances of judicial intervention linked to executive shortcomings:
| Issue | Executive Failure | Judicial Intervention | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Air Pollution (Delhi-NCR) | Lack of effective implementation of pollution control measures | Supreme Court directives on vehicle restrictions, industrial emissions, and construction activities | 2018-Present |
| COVID-19 Management | Initial lack of coordinated national response, oxygen shortages | Supreme Court intervention on oxygen allocation, vaccine policy, and migrant worker issues | 2020-2021 |
| Manual Scavenging | Failure to eradicate manual scavenging despite legal prohibitions | Supreme Court directives for rehabilitation and protection of manual scavengers | 2014 |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while judicial overreach is a multifaceted phenomenon, a significant portion of it can be attributed to the failures of the executive. Inefficiency, delays, and a lack of accountability within the executive branch create governance gaps that the judiciary often feels compelled to fill. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that judicial activism, PIL, and legislative weaknesses also contribute to this dynamic. Strengthening executive governance, enhancing legislative oversight, and fostering a more robust dispute resolution system are essential steps towards restoring the balance of power and minimizing the need for judicial intervention. A collaborative approach between the three branches of government is vital for effective governance and upholding the constitutional framework.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.