What is Judicial Overreach?

The judiciary is one of the three pillars of democracy, entrusted with upholding the Constitution, protecting individual rights, and ensuring justice. However, the judiciary’s actions sometimes go beyond its mandated role, resulting in what is termed judicial overreach. 

This occurs when courts interfere in areas that fall under the jurisdiction of the legislative or executive branches, disrupting the principle of separation of powers. While judicial activism is often celebrated for promoting justice, judicial overreach raises questions about the overextension of judicial authority.

Judicial Overreach: Meaning and Nature

Judicial overreach refers to situations where courts exceed their constitutional limits and encroach upon the legislative or executive domains. Unlike judicial activism, which works within constitutional boundaries to address governance gaps, judicial overreach undermines the delicate balance among government branches.

Key Characteristics of Judicial Overreach

1. Violation of Separation of Powers: Judicial overreach disrupts the equilibrium among the judiciary, executive, and legislature.
2. Unintended Consequences: Often, it arises from an overzealous interpretation of the law or a desire to address societal issues.
3. Policy-Making Role: In cases of overreach, courts inadvertently assume the role of lawmakers or administrators, which is constitutionally impermissible.

Judicial Overreach vs. Judicial Activism

While judicial activism is celebrated as a proactive stance to fill governance voids, judicial overreach is criticised for crossing constitutional limits. The distinction lies in:

• Judicial Activism: Courts interpret laws innovatively without exceeding their authority.
• Judicial Overreach: Courts create or enforce policies, stepping into the domains of the executive or legislature.

Notable Examples of Judicial Overreach

Basic Structure Doctrine

• Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
• Judgement: The Supreme Court held that Parliament could amend the Constitution but not alter its fundamental structure.
• Criticism: While the doctrine safeguards constitutional integrity, critics argue it grants the judiciary unchecked interpretative powers over constitutional amendments.

Introduction of Due Process of Law

• Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
• Judgement: The Court adopted the U.S. concept of “Due Process of Law,” ensuring laws must be fair, just, and reasonable.
• Criticism: This was seen as judicial overreach because it introduced a principle not originally present in the Indian Constitution.

Imposition of Patriotism

• Case: Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016)
• Judgement: The Supreme Court mandated playing the National Anthem in movie theatres and required audiences to stand.
• Criticism: This directive was seen as an overreach into personal freedoms and an attempt to enforce patriotism through judicial fiat.

Liquour Ban Near Highways

• Judgement: In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court banned liquor sales within 500 meters of highways to curb drunk driving.
• Criticism: This decision was criticised as an administrative matter best handled by the executive, not the judiciary.

Cancellation of 2G Licenses

• Case: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012)
• Judgement: The Supreme Court cancelled 122 telecom licenses due to irregularities in their allocation.
• Criticism: Critics argued this was an economic policy issue, traditionally the domain of the executive and legislature.

Vishakha Guidelines

• Case: Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
• Judgement: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces, which later became the basis for legislation.
• Criticism: Although a landmark judgement, it was seen as judicial overreach since the judiciary assumed a legislative role.

Lodha Committee Reforms

• Case: Related to corruption and match-fixing in cricket.
• Judgement: The Supreme Court established the Lodha Committee to reform the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).
• Criticism: The judiciary’s involvement in a private sports body’s functioning was viewed as exceeding its mandate.

Rejection of NJAC

• Case: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)
• Judgement: The Supreme Court struck down the Ninety-Ninth Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), asserting that it undermined judicial independence.
• Criticism: The judiciary’s decision to reject a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament was viewed as an overreach into legislative authority.

Consequences of Judicial Overreach

1. Disruption of Governance: Encroachment into executive and legislative domains hampers smooth governance.
2. Erosion of Separation of Powers: Judicial overreach weakens the balance and independence of the three branches of government.
3. Undermines Democracy: By interfering with the roles of elected representatives, the judiciary risks undermining democratic principles.
4. Judicial Overburden: Taking on non-judicial responsibilities can divert the judiciary’s focus from its primary role of delivering justice.

Reasons Behind Judicial Overreach

1. Inaction by Other Branches: When the legislature or executive fails to act, the judiciary often steps in to address governance gaps.
2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): While PILs aim to promote justice, they sometimes lead courts into policy-making areas.
3. Expansive Interpretations: Courts may interpret constitutional provisions broadly, leading to overreach.
4. Evolving Social Needs: Societal demands for justice and accountability can push courts into uncharted territory.

Safeguards Against Judicial Overreach

1. Adherence to Constitutional Limits: Courts must operate within their constitutional mandate and respect the separation of powers.
2. Strengthening Governance: Effective legislative and executive functioning can reduce the need for judicial intervention.
3. Guidelines for PILs: Establishing clear parameters for PIL admissibility can prevent overreach.
4. Judicial Accountability: Regular reviews and discussions on judicial decisions can ensure a balance between activism and overreach.

Conclusion

Judicial overreach reflects the judiciary’s commitment to justice but also highlights its potential to disrupt governance and the separation of powers. While judicial activism can fill voids left by the legislature and executive, overreach undermines democracy by centralising power in the judiciary. A balanced approach, guided by constitutional principles and judicial restraint, is essential to maintain the delicate equilibrium among the three branches of government.