Judicial overreach

Published on 15 Jan 2025

Judicial overreach

Judicial overreach refers to a situation where a judicial body exceeds its legal authority by making decisions that should be made by other branches of the government. 

Issues concerning Judicial overreach

• Lack of authority: The Judiciary does not have the authority to take decisions as they do not represent the people. This legislative erosion of power undermines democratic principles.

• Example: In 2016, the Supreme Court imposed a green cess of 1% on certain vehicles in Delhi but the judiciary has no authority to impose tax or cess.

• Against separation of power: Judicial intervention into the domain of the legislature and executive erodes the separation of power doctrine. These bodies would now look more into judicial matters which impede judicial independence.

• Example: In Subhash Kashinath Mahajan case, 2018, the Supreme Court diluted the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act by annulling Section 18 of the legislation. This could be interpreted as an interference in the domain of legislature.

• Lead to policy paralysis: Excessive interference from the part of judiciary inhibits the legislature and executive from making decisions, resulting in policy paralysis.

• Lack of accountability: The judiciary is not accountable to the public through periodic elections and hence shall not have the power to hinder legislative action.

• Example: In 2020, the Supreme Court banned the sale of BS 4 vehicles from April 2020 which created difficulty for the public while purchasing vehicles.

• Lack of expertise: Legislations are a product of deliberation. The judiciary lacks this deliberation and hence the actions mandated by the judiciary may not be pragmatic.

• Example: In 2016, the judiciary ordered a ban on liquor shops within 500 meters of any national or state highway. Such a move which reduced state revenue required more expert deliberation.

• Judicial workload: The Indian judiciary already has an immense backlog of cases. Judicial activism will only increase the existing pendency in cases. 

• Erodes public trust in government: When the judiciary takes over the role of other branches, the public loses the trust of the representatives and the government, leading to democratic instability.

Thus, the judiciary must prevent itself from overreaching and opt for a policy of judicial restraint. They should actively pursue the work of ensuring timely justice but shall respect the jurisdiction of other branches of the government to ensure smooth governance within the country.

Way Forward to ensure judicial restraint

• Follow code of conduct: Judicial code of conduct ensures the judges act impartially and adhere to the principles of judicial independence and integrity.

• Ensure accountability: Making the judges accountable for their decisions makes them more careful while delivering verdicts.

• Diversity within the judiciary: The Judiciary should have wider representation to incorporate diverse views which gives multiple perspectives that enhance the quality of legislation.

These measures of judicial restraint would induce self-discipline among the judges who would exercise their power in a controlled manner and ensure judicial activism remains relevant for a long.

Tags:
Polity

Keywords:
Indian Judiciary Judicial overreach separation of power

Syllabus:
General Studies Paper 2

Topics:
Functions of Judiciary