24 April 2025: The Hindu Editorial Analysis

1. Is India Witnessing Judicial Despotism?

(Source – The Hindu, Text & Context Page 10, Faizan Mustafa)

I. What is Judicial Despotism?

• Definition: A situation where the judiciary either:
  • Overextends its powers without accountability (judicial overreach), or
  • Becomes submissive to the executive (loss of independence).
• Montesquieu’s Warning: “There is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive.”

II. Constitutional Basis in India

• No Rigid Separation: Indian Constitution adopts a functional overlap model.
• Article 50 (DPSP): Separation of judiciary from executive.
• Article 124–147: Independence ensured via:
  • Security of tenure
  • Salaries charged on Consolidated Fund
  • Prohibition on discussion of conduct in legislature

III. Allegations of Judicial Despotism: Key Indicators

1. Post-Retirement Appointments

• Judges accepting gubernatorial or quasi-political roles soon after retirement.
• Perception: Compromised neutrality to appease the executive during service.
• Eg: Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi appointed to Rajya Sabha (March 2020).

2. Selective Judicial Silence

• Delayed hearings in politically sensitive cases: Electoral bonds, Article 370, CAA, etc.
• Courts seen as “prioritizing less urgent matters over crucial constitutional issues”.

3. Judicial Overreach

• Issuing policy-like directives (e.g., bans, mandating school prayers).
• Example: SC banning diesel vehicles >10 years old in Delhi-NCR (2015).

4. Executive-Judiciary Proximity

• Joint public appearances or statements suggesting ideological alignment.
• Blurs the line between separation and synchronization.

5. Inadequate Internal Accountability

• Absence of formal disciplinary mechanisms for sitting judges.
• In-house mechanism opaque, under CJI’s administrative control.

IV. Why This Matters: Democratic Implications

• Weakens Checks and Balances: Judiciary is the last line of defense against state overreach.
• Erodes Public Trust: Justice appears delayed, biased, or politicized.
• Hampers Fundamental Rights Protection: Citizens left vulnerable without an assertive court.
• Threatens Rule of Law: Judiciary becomes an extension of the ruling establishment.

V. Counterarguments and Context

• Judicial Restraint ≠ Judicial Surrender: Delay or denial of intervention may be due to respect for institutional boundaries.
• Workload and Pendency: 70,000+ cases pending in SC (2025 data); resource crunch may influence prioritization.
• Recent Activism Exists: SC has acted decisively in environmental and electoral matters at times.

VI. Remedies and Recommendations

1. Transparent Collegium System Reforms

• Greater scrutiny, accountability in judicial appointments and transfers.

2. Cooling-Off Period

• Minimum 2-year gap before post-retirement roles in executive or legislature.

3. Institutional Independence

• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)-like mechanism with safeguards.
• Separation of administrative duties from judicial functions of CJI.

4. Strengthen Internal Ethics Mechanism

• Clear framework for addressing misconduct by judges.

5. Regular Judicial Review of Inaction

• Constitution Bench should take up delayed matters suo motu.

VII. Relevant Supreme Court Observations

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Judicial independence is part of the Basic Structure.
• Justice Kurian Joseph (2018): Criticized lack of transparency in the judiciary.
• SC Bar Association v. Union of India (1998): Judicial independence must not be compromised even post-retirement.

Conclusion

Judicial despotism, whether through activism without restraint or submissiveness to the executive, undermines democracy. As the guardian of the Constitution, the judiciary must retain its independence, impartiality, and moral authority. A self-correcting, transparent, and assertive judiciary is essential for the survival of constitutional democracy in India.

Read more – 22 April 2025 : The Hindu Editorial Analysis