In news
Section:
Polity
Definition:
Judicial despotism refers to a situation where unelected judges exercise excessive or unchecked power, often intruding into executive or legislative domains, thereby upsetting the balance of powers.
Key Features:
- Article 142 Misuse: Used to deliver “complete justice” by bypassing statutory norms (e.g., Babri Masjid case).
- Expanding PIL Scope: Courts entertain PILs without locus standi, affecting governance.
- Lack of Electoral Accountability: Judges are unelected and face no public scrutiny.
- Collegium Supersession: Appointments bypass seniority on subjective grounds.
- Policy Decisions by Judiciary: Bans or guidelines issued without legislative backing (e.g., cracker bans, lynching guidelines).
Causes:
- Post-Emergency Judicial Assertiveness: Expanded role to reclaim lost legitimacy.
- Executive/Legislative Vacuum: Courts act when other organs are inactive or indecisive (e.g., Governors delaying Bill assent).
- Constitutional Ambiguity: Vague articles (142, 370) offer wide discretion.
- Public & Media Pressure: Courts perceived as guardians of civil rights.
- Lack of Judicial Accountability: No formal mechanism to check judicial overreach.
Consequences:
- Democratic Erosion: Courts override public mandates and legislative processes.
- Trust Deficit: Perceived activism (e.g., Pegasus, Electoral Bonds) affects neutrality.
- Governance Paralysis: Judicial interventions block/delay reforms (e.g., NJAC).
- Federalism Undermined: State powers weakened by centralist judgments (e.g., J&K status).
- Contempt Misuse: Chilling effect on free speech and criticism of the judiciary.
Way Forward:
- Clear checks and balances on judicial power.
- Strengthening parliamentary accountability and timely executive actions.
- Transparent and codified judicial appointment process.
- Narrower interpretation of Article 142 and PIL jurisdiction.
Course Purchase Query 