The Judiciary vs. Democracy: Is India’s Legal System Overstepping Its Boundaries?

The Indian judiciary has long been considered a pillar of democracy, upholding justice and ensuring the rule of law. However, in recent years, questions have been raised about its impartiality, its increasing judicial activism, and its apparent overreach into legislative and executive domains. Has the judiciary become a threat to Indian democracy? Or is this perception the result of deeper systemic issues?

Judiciary and Its Evolving Role

The Indian Constitution outlines a clear separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The judiciary’s primary role is to interpret laws, ensure justice, and act as a check on legislative and executive excesses. However, judicial overreach and activism have blurred these boundaries, leading to significant concerns.

Judicial Overreach and Judicial Adventurism

Judicial activism refers to instances where courts make decisions that appear to create new laws rather than interpreting existing ones. While some argue that this is necessary in cases where legislative action is inadequate, others believe it disrupts the democratic balance.

Examples include:

The Sabarimala Verdict: The Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple was seen by many as interference in religious traditions.

Firecracker Ban: The Supreme Court’s decision to ban firecrackers during Diwali, while justified on environmental grounds, raised questions about selective intervention.

Farm Laws Case: The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of farm laws passed by Parliament, effectively halting a democratic decision without clear constitutional backing.

The Controversial Collegium System and Judicial Appointments

India’s judiciary is unique in that judges appoint other judges through the collegium system. Unlike other democracies where judicial appointments undergo parliamentary scrutiny, India’s system lacks transparency and accountability.

This has led to allegations of nepotism and favoritism, where certain families have maintained a hold over judicial positions for generations. Critics argue that this system is inherently undemocratic and weakens public trust in judicial neutrality.

Delayed Justice and Accountability

The famous adage “justice delayed is justice denied” holds true for India, where millions of cases are pending in courts.

Over 4.25 crore cases are pending across various courts in India.

The Supreme Court itself has over 70,000 pending cases.

Despite these overwhelming backlogs, the judiciary often prioritizes PILs (Public Interest Litigations) and cases that gain media traction, further fueling perceptions of bias and selective activism.

Selective Suo Motu Actions and Political Influence

Another contentious issue is the judiciary’s selective approach to suo motu cases—where the court takes up matters without a petition.

In Manipur, the Supreme Court acted swiftly on human rights violations.

However, post-election violence in Bengal saw no immediate suo motu response, leading to accusations of political bias.

Moreover, many senior lawyers are active politicians, which raises concerns about conflicts of interest. The revolving door between politics and judiciary has led to questions about judicial independence.

Judiciary vs. Legislature: A Power Struggle?

In recent years, the judiciary has clashed with the legislature on multiple occasions, challenging laws passed by Parliament.

The striking down of NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission), which sought to make judicial appointments more transparent, was seen as an assertion of judicial supremacy.

The intervention in economic and governance issues, such as setting COVID-19 management protocols, has led many to argue that the judiciary is overstepping its domain.

Is Judiciary a Threat to Indian Democracy?

A robust judiciary is essential for a healthy democracy, but when courts overstep their constitutional mandate, they risk undermining the very system they are meant to protect. The key concerns—judicial overreach, lack of transparency in appointments, selective activism, and delays in justice—need urgent reform to restore public confidence.

For India to maintain a strong democratic structure, judicial reforms are imperative. Transparency, accountability, and a clear separation of powers must be reinforced to ensure that the judiciary remains a guardian of democracy, rather than a potential threat to it.