Judicial overreach in India. (UPSC CSE Mains 2020 - Political Science and International Relations, Paper 1)
- Judicial Activism: Judicial activism refers to the idea that judges should actively interpret and shape the law rather than simply applying it as it is written.
- This can involve interpreting the law in a way that expands or limits certain rights or protections or that resolves legal disputes in ways that are not explicitly provided for by the law.
- Example- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the power of the government to amend the constitution was not unlimited and that there were certain "basic features" of the constitution that could not be amended. This decision established the concept of the "basic structure".
- Judicial overreach: It refers to the situation where a court or judicial body exceeds its legal authority or jurisdiction, typically by making decisions that should properly be made by other branches of government.
- Judicial overreach can be controversial, as it can lead to conflicts between the different branches of government and can undermine the separation of powers which is an important principle in many democratic systems.
- Example - Arun Gopal v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court had fixed timings for setting off fireworks during Diwali and had banned the use of fireworks that are not environmentally friendly, despite there being no legal basis for these restrictions.
When judicial overreach occurs, it can have the following impacts on the functioning of the state machinery:
- Undermines separation of power: Judicial overreach can undermine the separation of powers and the balance of power among the branches of government. This can lead to a breakdown of the checks and balances essential to maintaining a healthy democracy.
- Delays in the justice delivery system: As the judiciary takes on more responsibilities, it can lead to a backlog of cases and delays in the justice delivery system.
- Overburden on the judiciary: When the judiciary takes on more responsibilities, it can lead to overburden on the judiciary and burnout of judges.
- Lack of accountability: Some argue that when the judiciary takes on more responsibilities, it can lead to a lack of accountability. There may be no clear mechanism for holding the judiciary accountable for its actions.
- Lack of expertise: Judges may not have the necessary expertise or knowledge to make informed decisions on complex policy issues. This can lead to decisions that are not well-informed or that do not take into account all of the relevant factors.
- Can lead to an unstable justice delivery system: Judicial overreach can also create confusion and uncertainty about the law and the role of the courts.
- Lack of certainty and predictability: When the judiciary makes laws and policy decisions, it can lead to a lack of certainty and predictability in the legal system, making it difficult for individuals and businesses to plan for the future.
- Hampers public trust: Judicial overreach can lead to public mistrust of the courts and the legal system. If the courts are perceived as overstepping their authority or acting in a partisan or biased manner, it can erode public confidence.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies