Judicial Overreach
Judicial overreach occurs when the judiciary exceeds its constitutional authority and
encroaches upon the roles and powers of the legislature or executive. While the judiciary is
tasked with interpreting laws, overreach involves going beyond interpretation to effectively
create, implement, or enforce laws, disrupting the balance of powers among the three
branches of government.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach
Judicial Activism: A proactive approach where courts interpret laws broadly to
protect fundamental rights or address governance lapses. It stays within constitutional
boundaries.
o Example: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Guidelines for workplace
harassment.
Judicial Overreach: A step further where the judiciary interferes in matters explicitly
outside its purview, often resembling lawmaking or policymaking.
o Example: Striking down of NJAC Act (2015), seen by some as judiciary
resisting reforms to its appointment process.
Causes of Judicial Overreach
1. Legislative Lapses: Inaction or inefficiency by the legislature in addressing key
issues.
2. Executive Failures: Lack of implementation or governance, prompting judicial
intervention.
3. Expansive Interpretation: Courts interpreting constitutional provisions or laws
beyond their original intent.
4. Public Interest Litigations (PILs): Excessive reliance on PILs can sometimes lead
courts to interfere in policy matters.
Examples of Judicial Overreach in India
1. Guidelines on Firecrackers
Case: Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2018)
Action: Supreme Court restricted the sale of traditional firecrackers and set timelines
for their usage.
Criticism: Many saw this as judicial overreach into environmental policy, which
should be determined by the executive and legislature.
2. Bans on Liquor Shops Near Highways
Case: State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu (2017)
Action: Supreme Court ordered the closure of liquor shops within 500 meters of
national and state highways.
Criticism: Critics argued this interfered with state governments' rights and policies
related to revenue and local governance.
3. National Anthem in Cinema Halls
Case: Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016)
Action: Supreme Court mandated the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls
before movie screenings.
Criticism: Seen as overstepping cultural policy, which is traditionally the domain of
the legislature or executive.
4. Ban on Diesel Vehicles in Delhi
Action: National Green Tribunal (NGT) and Supreme Court banned the registration
of diesel vehicles over 2,000 cc and older than ten years in Delhi-NCR.
Criticism: Policymaking on vehicle emissions and environmental standards
traditionally falls under executive agencies like the Ministry of Environment.
5. Striking Down NJAC
Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)
Action: Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission
(NJAC) Act, retaining the collegium system for judicial appointments.
Criticism: Critics argued this upheld judicial supremacy in appointments,
undermining legislative and executive input.
6. Delhi Government vs. Union of India
Case: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018)
Action: Supreme Court ruled on the distribution of powers between Delhi's elected
government and the Lieutenant Governor.
Criticism: While resolving constitutional ambiguity, some argued the judiciary
became too involved in political governance.
7. Regulation of Religious Practices
Case: Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (2018)
Action: Supreme Court allowed the entry of women of all ages into the temple,
overturning centuries-old practices.
Criticism: Critics labeled this judicial overreach into religious customs, though others
praised it for upholding gender equality.
Impacts of Judicial Overreach
Positive Impacts
1. Fills Governance Gaps: Addresses legislative or executive inaction.
2. Protects Fundamental Rights: Ensures rights are upheld when other branches fail.
3. Encourages Accountability: Puts pressure on other branches to perform effectively.
Negative Impacts
1. Disruption of Balance of Power: Violates the separation of powers principle.
2. Undermines Democracy: Marginalizes elected representatives and reduces public
accountability.
3. Erodes Trust in Institutions: Excessive interference can delegitimize the judiciary
itself.
4. Administrative Chaos: Judicial orders without adequate administrative support may
lead to implementation challenges.
Judicial Overreach: Safeguards and Solutions
1. Self-Restraint by Judiciary:
o Judges must adhere to constitutional boundaries and avoid encroaching on
policymaking.
o Adoption of a clear doctrine on separation of powers can help delineate
judicial responsibilities.
2. Strengthening Legislative and Executive Performance:
o Timely and efficient policymaking and governance can reduce judicial
interventions.
o Example: Comprehensive environmental laws could preempt judicial
directions like the firecracker ban.
3. Reform of PIL Mechanisms:
o Avoid frivolous PILs that lead to judicial overreach.
o Courts can institute stricter criteria for PIL admissibility.
4. Public Awareness and Debate:
o Encourage public discourse on judicial decisions, fostering accountability.
o Academics and media can critique and analyze instances of overreach.
5. Institutional Mechanisms:
o A constitutional body to oversee judicial accountability can check overreach
while respecting judicial independence.
Conclusion
Judicial overreach, while often stemming from genuine intentions to uphold rights or fill
governance voids, can disturb the delicate balance of powers enshrined in a democracy.
Ensuring that the judiciary operates within its constitutional limits is essential for maintaining
institutional harmony and public trust. Strengthening the legislature and executive, along with
judicial self-restraint, can prevent overreach while preserving the judiciary’s vital role as the
guardian of the Constitution.
