Is India witnessing judicial despotism?, Pg10

Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, inferred from Article 13, enabling courts to void laws in violation of fundamental rights.

Recent criticism revolves around the judiciary’s expansive use of Article 142 (for “complete justice”) and its perceived interference in legislative and executive domains.

The Supreme Court has acted under compelling public interest, from custodial deaths to electoral disqualifications, sparking debates on judicial activism vs overreach.

Political leaders in both power and opposition have historically oscillated in their stance depending on court rulings.

The article argues that while criticism is valid, the court has not breached the Lakshman Rekha of judicial propriety.

Background/Context

The term judicial despotism is used to question the excessive assertion of judicial power, especially in matters like electoral disqualification, governor’s discretion, and personal liberty.

Provisions such as Articles 13, 32, 226, and 142 empower the judiciary to act as a protector of constitutional rights, even if it means stepping into executive shoes.

Recent Developments

Under CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and his predecessor, the court has adjudicated sensitive issues like Article 370 abrogation, same-sex marriage, custodial compensation, and electoral disqualifications.

In each case, the Supreme Court’s use of “complete justice” powers was backed by public interest and legal necessity, not personal bias.

Allegations of overreach often arise when the court rules against the political executive, which varies depending on who is in power.

Strategic/Legal/Constitutional Implications

Judicial review ensures checks and balances, especially where executive or legislature fail to act or are in breach of the Constitution.

Article 142 empowers the court to issue binding directions in the interest of justice, but its frequent use demands scrutiny and clarity.

Critics warn that courts must avoid becoming “judicial legislators”, while defenders argue such interventions have upheld rights and accountability.

India's Stand or Way Forward

Maintain a delicate balance between activism and restraint. Judicial review must remain rights-centric, not agenda-driven.

Parliament should codify limits and guidelines for the use of Article 142 to prevent misuse.

Encourage institutional dialogue between the judiciary, legislature, and executive to preserve democratic harmony.

Uphold the constitutional spirit of checks, not control, among the three pillars.

Challenges Ahead

Perception of judiciary as partisan or overreaching erodes public trust.

Politicisation of criticism may reduce genuine scope for legal reforms.

Clarity is needed on the scope of “complete justice”, to avoid friction with other organs.

Courts must continue to uphold liberties without legislative substitution.

Mains Mock Question:

“While judicial review is an essential feature of the Indian Constitution, growing concerns of judicial overreach have raised questions on the limits of judicial power. Critically examine with reference to recent Supreme Court rulings.”