Debate Rekindled Over Judiciary’s Expanding Constitutional Role

Why in News ?

Recent Supreme Court judgments, especially involving Article 142 and federal disputes, have sparked criticism of judicial overreach. Concerns over separation of powers and democratic accountability have been raised, prompting a wider debate on the judiciary’s constitutional limits and responsibilities.

Judicial Review: Essence, Scope and Criticism

  • Though not explicitly stated, judicial review is inferred from Article 13 and is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
  • It empowers courts to nullify unconstitutional laws, ensuring rule of law.
  • Judicial activism and review are seen as distinct but interconnected.
  • Critics claim overuse undermines democracy as unelected judges strike down laws passed by elected bodies.
  • However, such instances are rare and often aim to protect fundamental rights.

Democracy, Federalism and Judicial Accountability

  • Judiciary often supports government actions but must oppose misgovernance when necessary.
  • Courts upheld demonetisation, NRC, and refused CBI probe in sensitive cases—indicating cautious activism.
  • Fair criticism is welcome, but attributing motives to judges undermines their constitutional role.
  • All government organs must act within constitutional limits and uphold the spirit of democracy.

Article 142 and Judicial Power:

● Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to deliver “complete justice”.
●It has been used in sensitive cases (e.g., Babri Masjid, mob lynching guidelines, triple talaq).
●The Vice-President likened it to a “nuclear missile”, drawing criticism.
●Experts argue this power is curative, not arbitrary, and shouldn’t be misrepresented.
●Recent Tamil Nadu judgment advised the President, not commanded—showing restraint, not overreach.