The Supreme Court criticized the use of bulldozers for demolishing properties of individuals accused of crimes, emphasizing that the executive cannot serve as both judge and enforcer by demolishing a person’s property without due process.
Example Case: The ruling was relevant to the case of Javed Mohammad, whose property was demolished after his arrest in the 2022 Prayagraj violence.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach
- Judicial Activism:
-
- Judges interpret laws actively to address broader social issues.
- May expand or limit rights to fill gaps not explicitly covered by the law.
- Judicial Overreach:
-
- Judiciary exceeds its authority, making decisions for other government branches.
- Can disrupt the balance of power and undermine the separation of powers.
Cases of Judicial Activism
- Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Established the “basic structure doctrine” limiting constitutional amendments.
- Maneka Gandhi (1978): Expanded “personal liberty” to include the right to travel abroad with due process.
- Vishaka Guidelines (1997): Set guidelines to prevent workplace sexual harassment in the absence of laws.
- NALSA (2014): Affirmed transgender individuals’ right to self-identify gender.
Cases of Judicial Overreach
- National Anthem in Cinemas (2016): Mandatory anthem in theaters, seen as exceeding judicial jurisdiction.
- Liquor Ban (2017): Restricted alcohol sales near highways, an administrative matter for state control.
- Fireworks Restrictions (2017): Set limits on fireworks during Diwali without explicit legal basis.
- Vehicle Emission Standards (2018): Enforced BS-6 vehicle mandate, intervening in government regulatory authority.
Significance of Judicial Activism
- Protects Individual Rights: Defends minorities and individuals against discriminatory laws (e.g., Vishaka case led to anti-harassment law).
- Promotes Rule of Law: Ensures government actions align with constitutional boundaries.
- Strengthens Democracy: Holds government accountable, preventing abuse of power.
- Encourages Social Change: Addresses key social issues, influencing future laws (e.g., NALSA case led to transgender rights legislation).
- Interprets Constitution Adaptively: Ensures constitutional relevance to modern issues.
- Balances Government Power: Limits legislative and executive overreach (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati case defined “basic structure”).
Criticism of Judicial Overreach
- Undermines Separation of Powers: Disrupts balance among government branches.
- Slows Justice System: Increases case backlog and delays.
- Overburdens Judiciary: Adds pressure, risking judicial burnout.
- Lacks Accountability: Limited mechanisms to check judicial actions.
- Limited Expertise: Judges may lack policy knowledge, risking uninformed decisions.
- Creates Legal Uncertainty: Reduces predictability in law, affecting planning.
- Weakens Public Trust: Overreach can lead to mistrust in judicial impartiality.
To balance judicial activism and overreach, each case’s context should guide decisions, ensuring the judiciary upholds checks and balances while remaining responsive to societal needs.
