Judicial Despotism
Kartavya Desk Staff
Syllabus: Polity
Source: TH
Context: Recent Supreme Court rulings, including on Article 370, Governor’s Bill assent powers, and judicial use of Article 142, have reignited debates over judicial overreach.
What is Judicial Despotism?
Judicial despotism refers to a scenario where unelected judges exercise excessive power, overriding legislative and executive authority.
• It arises when courts act beyond interpretation, venturing into policy-making or governance roles.
Features of Judicial Despotism:
• Frequent invocation of Article 142: The power to ensure “complete justice” can be used to bypass statutory procedures (e.g., Babri Masjid ruling).
• Expanding PIL jurisdiction: Courts entertain petitions even without personal grievance, affecting separation of powers.
• Weakening democratic accountability: Judges face no electoral scrutiny unlike elected lawmakers.
• Supersession in appointments: Judicial collegium bypasses seniority, often in the name of diversity or discretion.
• Policy pronouncements without legislative mandate: E.g., issuing guidelines on mob lynching or banning crackers without codified law.
Causes of Judicial Despotism:
• Judicial vacuum during emergencies: Post-Emergency, courts expanded powers through doctrines like PIL to restore legitimacy.
• Legislative and executive inaction: Courts step in when other organs fail to act or delay decisions (e.g., delays by Governors in Bill assent).
• Ambiguity in constitutional provisions: Vague language in Articles like 142 and 370 gives wide discretion to courts.
• Public pressure and media spotlight: Heightened expectations push courts to act as saviors of civil liberties.
• Lack of checks and balances: Absence of formal accountability for judges creates space for unchecked authority.
Consequences of Judicial Despotism:
• Erosion of democratic principles: Overstepping courts risk replacing legislative processes with personal interpretations.
• Breakdown of institutional trust: Perception of bias or activism weakens trust in judicial neutrality (e.g., Pegasus, electoral bonds cases).
• Stalemates in governance: Overreach may delay or reverse policy decisions (e.g., NJAC ruling blocked reforms in judicial appointments).
• Threat to federalism: Judiciary can indirectly undermine state autonomy (e.g., refusal to restore full statehood to J&K).
• Misuse of contempt powers: Silencing fair criticism under contempt of court may breed judicial intolerance.
Way Ahead:
• Limit use of Article 142 to truly exceptional situations; judicial orders must align with substantive law.
• Strengthen legislative responsibility by reducing policy gaps and promoting timely lawmaking.
• Improve judicial accountability through transparent collegium reforms and performance reviews.
• Encourage balanced dialogue among organs to resolve institutional conflicts harmoniously.
• Promote judicial restraint by reinforcing the doctrine of separation of powers in judgments and conduct.
Conclusion:
India’s judiciary remains a critical pillar of constitutional democracy. However, overreach in the name of activism can undermine its legitimacy. True constitutionalism lies in institutional humility, where courts act as guardians—not governors—of the Constitution.
• Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities. (UPSC-2020)