The Hindu: Published on 24th April 2025:
Why in News?
Recent judgments by the Supreme Court of India have triggered widespread debate and criticism from multiple quarters—political, legal, and civil society—on whether the apex court is overreaching its constitutional mandate.
The discourse revolves around terms like judicial despotism, judicial activism, and the use of Article 142, prompting concerns about the separation of powers and the balance between judiciary and legislature.
Key Issues Raised
Judicial Overreach or Accountability?
Critics claim the Court is overstepping by interpreting laws too broadly or interfering in governance (e.g., Article 370 verdict, refusal to probe CAA, EVM issues).
However, supporters argue that judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and is crucial to protect fundamental rights.
Use and Misuse of Article 142
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to deliver “complete justice”.
Critics liken it to a “nuclear missile”, but it has been instrumental in landmark decisions like Babri Masjid, mob lynching guidelines, and irretrievable marriage breakdown.
Allegations of Political Bias-
Accusations that the judiciary has been overly sympathetic to the current ruling party (e.g., Rafale deal, NRC, denial of CBI probe in Judge Loya’s case).
Nonetheless, Electoral Bonds and NJAC verdicts were exceptions where the court ruled against the government.
Criticism of Vice-President’s Remarks-
The Vice-President (also a senior advocate) referred to Article 142 as a “nuclear missile” — viewed as undermining constitutional faith in the judiciary.
The criticism is seen as misplaced, especially given his legal background.
Constitutional & Legal Dimensions
Judicial Review (Articles 13, 32, 226):
Although not explicitly named, it is implicit in the constitutional framework.
Meant to check violations of fundamental rights and unconstitutional laws.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers:
Constitution assigns distinct roles to the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary.
Judiciary’s intervention is justified in exceptional situations, especially to protect constitutional values.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint:
Fine line between enforcing the Constitution and making policy.
Court is expected to intervene only when legislative or executive actions are arbitrary or mala fide.
Political and Democratic Concerns:
Opposition blames judiciary for being lenient with the Executive.
But historical references (Nehru, Indira Gandhi) show that governments too have tried to bend the judiciary.
The appointment of judges, whether by the Executive or Collegium, is debated for lack of transparency.
Perspective on Democracy & Judicial Supremacy
India’s model is Constitutional Supremacy, unlike the UK’s Parliamentary Supremacy.
Elected governments cannot override constitutional morality.
Judicial independence is a safeguard against majoritarianism.
Conclusions & Takeaways
- While judicial accountability is important, calling the judiciary despotic is unfair.
- Supreme Court has largely acted within its constitutional remit.
- Balanced criticism, not politicized rhetoric, is key to preserving institutional integrity.
- The Tamil Nadu verdict, contrary to allegations, strengthens federalism and democratic processes.
- Judiciary must remain vigilant but restrained, and other organs must respect constitutional boundaries.
