JUDICIAL DESPOTISM : POLITY

JUDICIAL DESPOTISM : POLITY

NEWS: Is India witnessing judicial despotism?

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

Judicial review, rooted in Article 13 and part of the Constitution’s basic structure, empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, while judicial activism allows intervention in exceptional cases to protect rights. Though criticized for overreach, the judiciary remains vital in preserving democratic accountability and constitutional integrity.

Judicial Review: Constitutional Basis and Significance

  • Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution but is inferred from Article 13, which declares any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights to be void.
  • The power of judicial review is part of the basic structure doctrine, as affirmed in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), meaning it cannot be taken away by constitutional amendments.
  • It empowers the judiciary to invalidate laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution, ensuring the supremacy of constitutional principles over legislative or executive actions.

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Review

  • Judicial review is a legal mechanism that ensures laws align with constitutional provisions.
  • Judicial activism goes beyond passive interpretation and involves proactive engagement by the judiciary, especially in cases where other branches of government fail to protect citizens’ rights.
  • Activism is often justified during constitutional breakdowns, humanitarian crises, or executive inaction, reflecting the court’s commitment to social justice and rights enforcement.
  • While both are tools for judicial oversight, judicial activism is value-driven, whereas judicial review is strictly legality-based.

Judicial Powers and Accountability

  • Critics argue that recent judicial decisions reflect a rise in judicial assertiveness without corresponding checks on accountability.
  • Concerns arise when judges issue sweeping verdicts, especially under Article 142, which allows the Supreme Court to do “complete justice.”
  • While this article is extraordinary, it has been applied with care in landmark rulings such as:
  • Ram Janmabhoomi judgment (2019): Balanced religious sentiment with legal precedent.
  • Mob lynching guidelines: Court stepped in to direct preventive and remedial action against hate crimes.
  • Such interventions underscore the judiciary’s role in strengthening democratic values and public welfare, not weakening institutions.

 

Criticism of Judicial Review by the Political Executive

  • Elected governments have occasionally criticized judicial review as interference by unelected judges in democratic decisions.
  • The critique often intensifies when courts strike down or delay high-profile legislative or executive decisions.
  • However, constitutional scholars uphold judicial review as a check on arbitrary power, especially in matters concerning:
  • Fundamental rights
  • Federalism
  • Minority protections
  • Institutional integrity

Judiciary–Executive Relations in the Modi Era

  • The Supreme Court has upheld several contentious government decisions in recent years, leading to debates about judicial independence and institutional alignment.
  • Examples where the judiciary supported the executive:
  • Demonetization: Upheld as a policy decision.
  • Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA): No stay on implementation despite legal challenges.
  • Same-Sex Marriage Case: Did not legalize same-sex marriages, leaving it to Parliament.
  • However, courts have also asserted independence in some key cases:
  • Striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as unconstitutional.
  • Scrapping the Electoral Bonds Scheme for violating transparency and equality in political funding.

Judicial Role in Safeguarding Democracy

  • The Indian judiciary is tasked not with legislating or governing, but upholding constitutional mandates.
  • It ensures that laws, executive decisions, and administrative actions remain within the constitutional boundaries.
  • The judiciary also acts as a guardian of rights, ensuring that state power does not overreach into the fundamental freedoms of individuals.
  • Criticism of judgments is healthy in a democracy, but attributing political motives to judges undermines judicial credibility.

Judiciary’s Responsibilities and Limits

  • Courts have consistently reiterated that they cannot replace the legislature or executive in policymaking.
  • Yet, in situations of governance failure, rights violations, or constitutional breaches, judicial intervention becomes necessary.
  • Article 142 powers, though sweeping, have not been exercised indiscriminately and have been primarily used to:
  • Ensure justice when procedural law falls short
  • Implement decisions effectively
  • Bridge legal and moral gaps in exceptional cases

Case Study: Governor’s Inaction and Judicial Oversight

  • In the recent Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court set timelines for the Governor to act on bills and recommendations, ensuring constitutional functioning.
  • This reflects the court’s institutional balancing role—ensuring all constitutional offices remain within their defined roles.
  • Such interventions protect federalism and democratic processes without formally amending the Constitution.

Conclusion: The Role and Limits of Judicial Review

  • Judicial review is an essential pillar of Indian democracy, securing the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights.
  • While the judiciary must be cautious not to encroach upon governance, its interventions are crucial during executive inaction, constitutional violations, or threats to democratic norms.
  • The judiciary’s strength lies in its moral legitimacy and interpretative clarity, and not in exercising arbitrary power.

 

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/is-india-witnessing-judicial-despotism/article69484106.ece