Judicial Overreach: Involvement of CJI in Executive Appointments

Syllabus: GS2/Polity

Context

• Recently, the Vice-President of India raised significant concerns over judicial overreach, specifically questioning the role of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in executive appointments.

Understanding Judicial Overreach in India

• Judicial overreach refers to an extreme form of judicial activism where arbitrary, unreasonable, and frequent interventions by the judiciary encroach upon the legislature’s or executive’s domain.
• It occurs when the court oversteps its constitutional role by making policy decisions or laws, which is the prerogative of the legislature.
• India’s democratic framework ensures a system of checks and balances, delineating distinct roles for the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach

• Former Chief Justices of India, including Ranjan Gogoi and P. Sathasivam, have emphasized the fine line between judicial activism and overreach, cautioning against excessive judicial intervention in governance.
  • Article 50 mandates separation of the judiciary from the executive.

Instances of Judicial Overreach

• General Cases:
  • Madras High Court’s Directive on ‘Vande Mataram’ (2017): Mandated the singing of ‘Vande Mataram’ in schools, government offices, and private entities in Tamil Nadu, seen as excessive interference in cultural expression.
  • Supreme Court’s National Anthem Mandate in Cinema Halls: The directive to play the national anthem and mandate standing was seen as unnecessary interference in executive policymaking.
  • Madras High Court’s Aadhaar-Social Media Linking Proposal (2019): The court proposed linking Aadhaar with social media accounts to curb cybercrimes. However, the suggestion sparked privacy concerns and was criticized as judicial overreach into policy-making.
• Instances in Executive Appointments:
  • Striking Down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) (2015): The Supreme Court invalidated the NJAC, reaffirming judicial primacy in appointments, despite the commission being introduced through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014) to replace the Collegium System.
  • Intervention in Bureaucratic Appointments:
    • Prakash Singh Case (2006): Directed states on police reforms and officer appointments, overriding executive discretion.
    • Alok Verma’s Reinstatement as CBI Director (2018): The Supreme Court overturned the government’s decision to remove him, demonstrating judicial control over executive appointments.

International Comparison

• USA: Judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, ensuring executive oversight.
• UK: Parliamentary supremacy limits judicial interference.
• France & Germany: Judiciary has a limited role in executive appointments and policy decisions.

Implications of Judicial Overreach

• Erosion of Democratic Principles: Encroachment into legislative or executive functions undermines the separation of powers (Article 50), a fundamental aspect of democracy.
• Constitutional Disruptions: Judicial overreach distorts the balance of power essential for democratic governance.
  • It may transform the judiciary into a quasi-legislative or quasi-executive entity, affecting its independence.
• Policy Implementation Issues: Judicially mandated policies may lack thorough deliberation, resulting in ineffective governance.
  • The executive, responsible for governance, faces limitations in implementing policies efficiently.
• Strained Inter-Branch Relations: Overreach fosters mistrust among government branches, disrupting cooperative governance and leading to conflicts between the judiciary and executive.

Committee Recommendations

• Law Commission Reports: Emphasized the need for a transparent judicial appointment process.
• Punchhi Commission (2010): Suggested a balanced approach between the judiciary and the executive.

Way Forward

• Judicial Accountability Bill: Establish mechanisms for judicial accountability.
• Reforming the Collegium System: Introduce transparency and executive consultation.
• Encouraging Self-Restraint: Judiciary should avoid making policy decisions.

Conclusion

• Judicial overreach remains a contentious issue in India, affecting governance and the balance of power between the three branches of government. While judicial activism has played a vital role in upholding constitutional rights, excessive intervention risks undermining the democratic process. Ensuring judicial restraint and adherence to constitutional boundaries is crucial for maintaining the integrity of governance in India.

Source: TH