Answer

The Indian judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and the final interpreter of law. However, when courts begin to overreach or exercise excessive discretion, the risk of judicial despotism arises—where judges substitute legislative or executive wisdom with their own, undermining the doctrine of separation of powers. If left unchecked, it may erode public trust and democratic legitimacy.

Judiciary as a Protector of Democratic Values

• Upholding Fundamental Rights: The judiciary has been instrumental in expanding the scope of rights and protecting civil liberties.
  For example: The Navtej Singh Johar case (2018) decriminalised homosexuality, upholding dignity and personal liberty under Article 21.
• Ensuring Checks and Balances: The judiciary acts as a watchdog against arbitrary executive or legislative actions, preserving constitutional morality.
  For example: The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, preventing authoritarian constitutional amendments.
• Judicial Intervention in Public Interest: Through PILs, the courts have enabled social justice for the voiceless and marginalised.
  For example: The Vishaka guidelines (1997) laid the foundation for workplace sexual harassment laws in the absence of parliamentary legislation.
• Safeguarding Electoral Democracy: The courts have played a key role in ensuring free and fair elections by regulating money power and criminalisation of politics.
  For example: In the Lily Thomas case (2013), the SC disqualified convicted MPs/MLAs, strengthening democratic accountability.
• Promoting Environmental and Human Rights Jurisprudence: The judiciary has evolved the right to a clean environment, and introduced doctrines like the polluter pays principle.
  For example: The MC Mehta series of cases shaped India’s environmental regulation architecture.

Judicial Despotism and Its Impact on Public Trust and Democratic Legitimacy

• Overreach into Executive and Legislative Domains: When the judiciary starts issuing policy-like directions, it disturbs the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution.
  For example: In the 2G spectrum case (2012) and coal block allocations (2014), the Supreme Court cancelled licenses retrospectively, causing economic uncertainty and infringing on executive decision-making.
• Opaque Collegium System and Lack of Accountability: The non-transparent system of judicial appointments lacks external checks and undermines public trust.
  For example: The Supreme Court’s striking down of the 99th Constitutional Amendment and NJAC Act (2015) blocked a reform passed unanimously by Parliament, raising concerns of “judicial supremacy.”
• Arbitrary Use of Contempt Powers: Overuse of contempt laws may suppress legitimate criticism and public discourse.
  For example: The Prashant Bhushan contempt case (2020) triggered debates about the judiciary’s tolerance for dissent and public accountability.
• Selective Activism and Inconsistency: Inconsistency in judicial activism undermines the principle of equal justice.
  For example: Swift judgments in certain high-profile PILs contrast with delayed rulings on issues like Article 370 and Citizenship Amendment Act, reflecting selective urgency.
• Lack of Institutional Reform and Self-Regulation: Resistance to instituting internal reforms or a judicial complaints mechanism hampers public accountability.
  For example: Despite recommendations from the Law Commission and Second ARC, the judiciary still lacks a robust code of conduct or disciplinary framework for misconduct.

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Despotism

While the judiciary must remain independent and empowered, unchecked judicial activism or overreach risks becoming judicial despotism, weakening institutional balance and public faith. A transparent, accountable, and self-restrained judiciary, complemented by legislative and executive maturity, is essential to uphold constitutional democracy and public trust.

DOWNLOAD PDF