Syllabus: Functioning of the Judiciary
Context: Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar criticized Supreme Court over “judicial overreach” in Vice-Chancellor appointments, stating courts should “interpret Constitution, not amend it”, questioning search committee appointments.
Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach in India
- Conceptual Understanding
-
- Judicial Activism refers to courts actively interpreting laws to expand rights or address legislative gaps.
- It involves creative constitutional interpretation beyond literal text to meet evolving social needs.
- Judicial Overreach occurs when courts exceed jurisdiction by encroaching upon legislative or executive domains.
- Overreach risks violating the doctrine of separation of powers, a core democratic principle.
- Both concepts shape the balance between constitutional guardianship and institutional limits.
- Judicial Activism: Key Indian Judgments
-
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded Article 21, linking personal liberty with due process.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) framed workplace sexual harassment guidelines in legislative absence.
- NALSA v. Union of India (2014) recognised transgender self-identification, affirming dignity and equality rights.
- These rulings reflect courts responding proactively to constitutional and social deficits.
- Judicial Overreach: Illustrative Cases
-
- Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016) mandated playing the National Anthem in cinemas.
- Liquor Ban Case (2017) prohibited liquor sales near highways, affecting state regulatory powers.
- Arun Gopal v. Union of India (2017) fixed Diwali firecracker timings without explicit statutory backing.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2018) enforced transition from BS-IV to BS-VI vehicles through judicial mandate.
- These actions raised concerns of courts entering administrative and policy-making arenas.
- Significance of Judicial Activism
-
- Protects fundamental rights of individuals and vulnerable groups against state excesses.
- Reinforces the rule of law by invalidating unconstitutional actions and arbitrary governance.
- Strengthens democracy by ensuring accountability, transparency, and constitutional morality.
- Enables progressive social transformation through rights-based jurisprudence.
- Keeps the Constitution dynamic by adapting principles to contemporary challenges.
- Criticism of Judicial Overreach
-
- Undermines institutional balance by disturbing checks and balances among state organs.
- Increases judicial workload, causing delays and case backlogs.
- Judges may lack policy expertise, risking impractical or uninformed decisions.
- Absence of direct accountability mechanisms may reduce democratic oversight.
- Generates legal uncertainty, affecting governance stability and public confidence.
- Judicial Restraint: Meaning and Importance
-
- Judicial restraint urges courts to avoid unnecessary interference in executive or legislative matters.
- Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2007) emphasised respecting separation of powers.
- Former CJI A.S. Anand warned against unpredictability and judicial adventurism.
- Restraint ensures equality among branches while preserving judicial independence.
- Ensuring Balance
-
- Strengthen judicial accountability and transparency through reasoned judgments.
- Enforce codes of conduct and ethics to maintain impartiality and institutional credibility.
- Promote diversity and inclusivity in judicial appointments for broader societal representation.
- Balance activism and restraint contextually, safeguarding democracy and constitutional governance.