Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Judicial overreach, a contentious topic in Indian constitutionalism, refers to the judiciary exceeding its legitimate authority and encroaching upon the powers of the legislature and executive. While judicial review is a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, ensuring accountability and protecting fundamental rights, concerns arise when judicial interventions are perceived as policy-making or substituting the judgment of elected representatives. Recent instances, such as interventions in environmental policy, governance of sports bodies, and even political matters, have fueled debates about the appropriate scope of judicial power. This necessitates a careful examination of the boundaries between judicial activism and overreach, particularly in the context of India’s evolving socio-political landscape.
Understanding Judicial Overreach
Judicial overreach isn’t simply assertive judicial review. It’s characterized by the judiciary venturing into areas best left to the other branches of government. This can manifest in several ways:
- Policy Formulation: Issuing directions that effectively create policy, rather than simply interpreting the law.
- Executive Function: Taking on administrative tasks that fall within the executive’s domain.
- Legislative Function: Reading words into statutes or striking down laws based on subjective interpretations of constitutional morality.
Arguments Supporting Claims of Judicial Overreach
Several arguments support the claim of judicial overreach in India:
- Expanding Scope of PIL: The liberalisation of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the 1980s, while beneficial, has sometimes led to frivolous petitions and judicial intervention in matters that could be better addressed through political processes.
- Judicial Activism: While judicial activism is necessary to protect fundamental rights, it can sometimes cross the line into overreach, particularly when courts issue detailed directives on how the executive should implement policies.
- Lack of Accountability: Judges are not directly accountable to the electorate, raising concerns about the legitimacy of their policy-making decisions.
Examples of Alleged Judicial Overreach
Several cases have been cited as examples of judicial overreach:
- The Shah Bano Case (1985): The Supreme Court’s decision granting maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman sparked controversy and led to legislation overturning the judgment, highlighting the tension between judicial pronouncements and legislative intent.
- The Second Judges Case (1993): The Supreme Court established the collegium system for judicial appointments, effectively taking control of the appointment process from the executive. This has been criticized as an encroachment on the executive’s powers.
- Ban on Jallikattu (2016): The Supreme Court’s ban on Jallikattu, a traditional bull-fighting sport, led to widespread protests and ultimately required legislative intervention to allow the sport to continue with certain regulations.
- Intervention in BCCI Affairs: The frequent judicial interventions in the affairs of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) have been seen by some as exceeding the court’s remit.
Arguments Against Claims of Judicial Overreach
Conversely, proponents argue that judicial intervention is often necessary to:
- Protect Fundamental Rights: The judiciary acts as a guardian of fundamental rights, particularly when the executive or legislature fails to do so.
- Fill Legislative Vacuum: In the absence of clear legislation, the judiciary may need to step in to address pressing social issues.
- Ensure Good Governance: Judicial intervention can promote transparency, accountability, and good governance.
Safeguards Against Judicial Overreach
Maintaining a balance between judicial independence and accountability requires several safeguards:
- Strengthening Legislative Capacity: A robust and responsive legislature can reduce the need for judicial intervention.
- Improving Executive Implementation: Effective implementation of laws and policies by the executive can address many of the issues that lead to judicial intervention.
- Judicial Restraint: Judges should exercise restraint and avoid venturing into areas best left to the other branches of government.
- Transparency in Judicial Appointments: A more transparent and accountable process for judicial appointments can enhance public trust in the judiciary.
Conclusion
Judicial overreach remains a complex and debated issue in India. While judicial review is essential for upholding the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights, it’s crucial to ensure that the judiciary operates within its legitimate boundaries. A collaborative approach involving all three branches of government, coupled with a commitment to transparency and accountability, is necessary to maintain the delicate balance of power and safeguard the principles of constitutionalism. The ongoing dialogue surrounding judicial intervention is a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy, but it requires careful consideration and a nuanced understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of each branch.
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.