Judicial Overreach: A Democratic Warning
The strength of a democracy is not measured merely by the number of elections it conducts. It is measured by the strength of its institutions and their ability to function within the boundaries laid down by the Constitution. The Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary have clearly defined and distinctive responsibilities in our constitutional framework. When these boundaries become blurred, the institutional balance is disturbed. And when one institution begins performing the job of another, democracy itself becomes vulnerable.
We have witnessed Judicial Overreach on several occasions. But there is another problem that deserves equal attention: our growing dependence on the judiciary.
Governments fail to perform their duties, political parties turn administrative disagreements into legal battles, and influential individuals increasingly seek judicial intervention to settle matters that should ideally have been resolved through established institutional mechanisms.
Let me make one thing clear. The Indian judiciary has saved our democracy on numerous occasions through revolutionary and courageous verdicts. It has protected individual liberty, upheld constitutional rights and reminded powerful governments that nobody is above the law. Our faith, trust and respect for the judiciary remain unflinching. There is absolutely no intention to undermine this indispensable institution. Watch why CJI Khanna said that Judiciary is the backbone of democracy.
However, respect does not mean silence. Certain developments have drawn my attention, and they deserve public discussion. Is it healthy for a democracy when almost every important political or administrative dispute ends up in court? Why should citizens repeatedly depend on judicial intervention to obtain rights that governments should ordinarily protect? And why should influential individuals sometimes appear to receive more urgent attention than ordinary litigants who have been waiting for years?
Let us examine some incidents.
Shah Bano and Shayara Bano: When Political Convenience Defeats Justice
Let us begin with two landmark cases concerning the rights of Muslim women. In 1985, the Supreme Court delivered its historic judgment in the Shah Bano case. The Court upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was a significant judgment that recognised a woman’s right to financial protection irrespective of her religion.
But what happened afterwards?
The Rajiv Gandhi government enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, following intense political pressure and controversy. The legislation was widely criticised for diluting the practical impact of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
The political establishment had effectively chosen political accommodation over the larger principle of gender justice. Neerja Chowdhury in Indian Express explained how Rajib Gandhi Government had to pass the Muslim Women Act, 1986 overturning the court verdict.
It is worth mentioning that the Supreme Court subsequently interpreted the 1986 legislation in Danial Latifi (2001) in a manner that protected divorced Muslim women’s rights. The larger point remains that a landmark judicial verdict can be followed by political legislation that changes its immediate legal consequences.
Decades later, another landmark judgment came in the Shayara Bano case of 2017, when the Supreme Court invalidated the practice of instant triple talaq. It was another important step towards protecting the dignity and rights of Muslim women.
These cases demonstrate the importance of an independent judiciary. But they also expose the limitations of judicial intervention. A court can deliver a revolutionary verdict, yet the political establishment can subsequently alter the legal framework. Justice cannot depend entirely on the willingness of governments to respect its spirit.
Election Commissioner Appointments: A Question of Checks and Balances
Now consider the controversy surrounding the appointment of Election Commissioners.
In March 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India. The Court prescribed a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. This arrangement was to remain in force until Parliament enacted a law governing the appointment process.
Subsequently, the Narendra Modi government enacted the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. Under the new legislation, the Chief Justice of India was replaced by a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Watch the reply of minister, Arjun Ram Meghwal, regarding the The CEC & Other EC (Appointment Conditions of Service & Term of Office)Bill, 2023.
Consequently, the selection committee now consists of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The government has two representatives against one from the Opposition.
One may argue that Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact such legislation. That is not the point. The real concern is whether the new arrangement provides adequate institutional independence to an authority responsible for conducting free and fair elections. The principle of checks and balances should not become a casualty of legislative majority.
We should also remember the historic Allahabad High Court judgment of 1975, which set aside Indira Gandhi’s election from Rae Bareli. It was a powerful reminder that even the Prime Minister is subject to judicial scrutiny.
Today, controversies surrounding the Election Commission and allegations concerning Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar have intensified questions about the institution’s independence. I am not commenting on the merits of individual allegations or the legal procedures involved. But the controversy itself raises an important institutional question. Would the earlier selection arrangement have helped maintain greater public confidence in the appointment process?
The matter took another significant turn in September 2026. A two-judge Supreme Court bench delivered a split verdict on whether the challenge to the 2023 appointment law should be referred to a Constitution Bench. Both judges ultimately agreed that the matter should be placed before the Chief Justice of India for consideration of a larger bench. The split verdict itself underlines the seriousness of the constitutional questions involved.
Why should the independence of such an important constitutional institution repeatedly become a matter of litigation?
West Bengal: Governance by Court Orders?
West Bengal provides several examples of how administrative failures, political confrontations and institutional disagreements have increasingly turned into prolonged court battles. Unfortunately, ordinary citizens often pay the price.
OBC Controversy: Students Caught in the Legal Battle
Consider the OBC controversy involving the Mamata Banerjee government. In May 2024, the Calcutta High Court cancelled the OBC classification and certificates covering several communities notified after 2010, pointing out serious deficiencies in the process followed by the state government.
The state government challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court admitted the challenge without staying the original High Court judgment. Subsequently, the state issued fresh OBC notifications in June 2025, which became the subject of another round of litigation. The legal position remained complicated, with further interim orders and proceedings.
The uncertainty surrounding the reservation framework created complications for students and candidates. Undergraduate admissions in 2025 also became a matter of concern. Candidates and their families were left anxious about the applicable reservation arrangements and their academic future.
We should be precise here: not every admission delay can automatically be attributed to the OBC litigation. But the larger problem is undeniable. When governments formulate policies without adequately addressing their legal foundations, students and ordinary citizens are left to face the consequences of prolonged litigation.
These are young people planning their futures. They should not have to spend sleepless nights because the government failed to ensure that its policies were legally sustainable. The loss of academic time, uncertainty and migration of talented students are not easily reversible.
Chingrighata Metro: Why Must the Court Push the Administration?
Another example is the prolonged delay surrounding the completion of Metro extension work at Chingrighata Bypass. The construction required temporary traffic restrictions, but the necessary administrative coordination and permissions became a serious obstacle.
The Calcutta High Court intervened repeatedly. On 23 December 2025, the Court directed the state to finalise traffic diversion dates by 6 January 2026 and ensure that the remaining viaduct work was completed by 15 February 2026.
Even after these directions, the matter did not end. In February 2026, contempt proceedings followed over alleged non-compliance, with notices issued to senior state officials. The subsequent developments made the administrative failure even more difficult to ignore.
Why should a Metro extension project require such prolonged judicial intervention? Is it not the responsibility of the government and its administrative machinery to coordinate with the relevant authorities and facilitate public infrastructure work?
Citizens need functioning roads, better public transport and timely infrastructure development. They should not have to depend on court orders to make the administration perform its basic duties.
SIR: Voters Become Victims of Institutional Confrontation
The controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal provides another disturbing example.
I will never argue that every petition challenging SIR was redundant. Removing the names of deceased persons, duplicate entries, shifted voters and genuinely ineligible persons is necessary for maintaining accurate electoral rolls. At the same time, wrongful deletion of eligible voters is unacceptable. Every genuine grievance deserves a fair hearing.
However, the confrontation between the West Bengal government and the Election Commission reached an undesirable level. Instead of resolving legitimate disagreements through constitutional and administrative mechanisms, the dispute increasingly became a prolonged judicial battle.
Following the adjudication process, approximately 27.16 lakh names were deleted from West Bengal’s electoral rolls in 2026. According to the Election Commission’s submission to the Supreme Court in September 2026, 22.21 lakh of these deleted voters had filed appeals seeking restoration of their names. There were approximately 38.31 lakh appeals in total, including challenges to the inclusion of other voters.
The Supreme Court had assigned judicial officers to scrutinise the flagged electoral entries and subsequently facilitated appellate mechanisms. However, the tribunals could restore only 1,607 deleted voters in time for the 2026 Assembly election, according to the Election Commission’s submission.
The figures themselves tell a disturbing story. Whatever one’s political position on SIR, the plight of ordinary voters cannot be ignored. Many people were unable to exercise their voting rights because their appeals had not been decided in time.
I have discussed the controversy in greater detail in Bengal SIR Voter Deletion: The Truth and Bengal Voter Roll Controversy: A Battle of Rights.
The Election Commission has its constitutional responsibilities. The state government has its own responsibilities. The judiciary must protect electoral rights. But why should ordinary voters become casualties of a confrontation among constitutional institutions?
SSC Recruitment Scam: Who Will Return the Lost Years?
The SSC recruitment scam is another painful example of how administrative failure and prolonged litigation can destroy the hopes of ordinary people.
The 2016 recruitment process became embroiled in allegations of widespread irregularities. In April 2024, the Calcutta High Court cancelled the entire selection process. The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court, which delivered its judgment on 3 April 2025 in State of West Bengal versus Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee).
The Supreme Court examined the distinction between candidates against whom there was material indicating wrongdoing and those who claimed to have been selected legitimately. The judgment upheld the cancellation of the tainted selection process while addressing the complicated position of the different categories of candidates.
The state government and the concerned authorities had their legal rights to seek review or clarification. Nobody can deny that. But repeated litigation, administrative uncertainty and fresh recruitment complications meant that deserving candidates continued to suffer.
Many candidates had spent years preparing for these examinations. Some had crossed the age limit. Others had sacrificed alternative career opportunities. Even after years of litigation, their future remained uncertain.
Can anybody compensate them for the years they have lost? Can a young person recover the most productive years of his or her career because the recruitment authorities failed to conduct a transparent selection process? Moreover, it has created an appalling condition in the education system of West Bengal.
The government cannot escape responsibility by pointing towards pending court cases. The judiciary can deliver judgments, but it cannot restore the lost years of thousands of young people.
Political Leaders, Judges and Selective Urgency
There is another disturbing aspect of West Bengal politics. TMC leaders, including Abhishek Banerjee and Kunal Ghosh, have made public remarks targeting individual judges and questioning their conduct. Political criticism of judicial decisions is legitimate in a democracy. But publicly naming and shaming judges in a politically charged atmosphere is a different matter altogether.
The dignity and independence of the judiciary must be respected. Political leaders cannot expect the courts to protect their rights while simultaneously attempting to discredit individual judges whenever a verdict goes against their interests.
One would also expect the judiciary to respond consistently when its institutional dignity is challenged. The credibility of the institution depends not only on its judgments but also on public confidence in its impartiality.
Now consider the anticipatory bail applications and urgent hearings sought by influential TMC leaders after the change of government and the subsequent recovery of alleged ill-gotten cash, gold and other properties. Every accused person has the constitutional right to seek bail and legal protection. No one should be denied due process because of political affiliation.
But the larger question concerns equal access to justice. When politically influential individuals manage to secure priority hearings, what happens to ordinary citizens who have been waiting for years for their cases to be heard? The judiciary has limited time and resources. Preferential urgency in one category of cases should not come at the cost of thousands of ordinary litigants.
There is also an interesting contrast. When the previous TMC government denied permission for opposition rallies and meetings, particularly those involving Suvendu Adhikari, the judiciary often became the refuge for opposition leaders. The courts appeared almost like an angel protecting their democratic rights.
And rightly so. The right to peaceful assembly cannot depend on the political convenience of the ruling party. But why should opposition leaders have to approach the judiciary repeatedly to exercise such basic democratic rights?
We have discussed the larger political consequences of this administrative and institutional culture in our articles on why Mamata Banerjee lost power and the accountability challenges facing the new government.
Prabir Purkayastha Case: When the Judiciary Becomes a Saviour
While criticising judicial overreach and excessive dependence on the judiciary, we must not forget the occasions when the Supreme Court has acted as a saviour of constitutional democracy.
The Prabir Purkayastha (NewsClick) case is an important example. The NewsClick founder was arrested in October 2023 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. In May 2024, the Supreme Court declared his arrest and subsequent remand illegal because the grounds of arrest had not been properly communicated to him in writing.
The judgment in Prabir Purkayastha versus State (NCT of Delhi) was an important reaffirmation of constitutional safeguards under Articles 21 and 22. The Court was not deciding the truth or otherwise of every allegation against the news portal. It was examining whether the constitutional procedure governing arrest had been followed.
That distinction is extremely important. The protection of individual liberty cannot be sacrificed merely because the allegations are serious or politically sensitive.
Whenever governments enjoy brute parliamentary majorities, there is a danger that executive power may become increasingly assertive against dissenting voices. We have seen such concerns in different democracies. The judiciary must remain vigilant against arbitrary action, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake.
But citizens must also remember that the ultimate strength of democracy lies in their own hands. The US midterm elections provide an important reminder that voters can limit the power of a ruling establishment through electoral accountability. No government should consider its majority permanent or beyond public scrutiny.
Judicial protection is essential, but democratic accountability through elections, independent institutions and an informed electorate is equally important.
BCCI Presidential Election: Judicial Intervention Beyond Politics
Judicial intervention has not been confined to political controversies. I also remember the controversy surrounding the BCCI presidential election in 2004, when the fierce rivalry between Jagmohan Dalmiya and Sharad Pawar’s respective camps created a major institutional battle.
The dispute over the eligibility of candidates and the conduct of the BCCI election reached the Madras High Court. The litigation concerned the election process and the rights of rival groups within the cricket administration. The Supreme Court subsequently dealt with the connected appeals in January 2005 in BCCI versus Netaji Cricket Club.
This was an institutional dispute involving one of India’s most powerful sporting organisations. It demonstrated how internal rivalries, personality clashes and struggles for control can eventually bring even non-governmental institutions into the courtroom.
Of course, judicial intervention in such circumstances may be necessary to protect legal rights. But should the internal governance of an organisation become so dysfunctional that the courts have to intervene in its election process? The BCCI episode is another reminder that institutional weakness is not confined to government departments or political parties.
Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach Are Not the Same
Here, we need to make an important distinction. Not every judicial intervention amounts to Judicial Overreach. When the Executive violates fundamental rights, when the Legislature passes an unconstitutional law, or when an administrative authority acts arbitrarily, the judiciary has both the authority and the responsibility to intervene.
Judicial Activism has often strengthened Indian democracy. The Supreme Court’s judgments on individual liberty, electoral transparency, constitutional accountability and fundamental rights have protected citizens against the misuse of power.
But judicial activism and judicial overreach are not interchangeable. The former can be an essential instrument of constitutional protection. The latter becomes a concern when courts enter areas that constitutionally belong to the Legislature or the Executive, or when judicial directions begin to substitute for policy-making and routine administration.
There is another problem that deserves equal attention: institutional failure. When governments cannot formulate legally sustainable policies, recruitment agencies fail to conduct transparent examinations, political parties cannot resolve their internal disputes and administrative authorities refuse to perform their responsibilities, the courts become the default destination.
Over time, an unhealthy pattern develops. The government makes a questionable decision. Somebody approaches the court. The court issues an order. The government appeals or seeks review. The matter continues. Meanwhile, the ordinary citizen waits.
We must also acknowledge that the judiciary itself is burdened with an enormous backlog of cases. Delays are not always deliberate, and every litigant has the right to pursue legitimate remedies. However, prolonged litigation can be exploited by those who possess the resources, influence and legal machinery to sustain it.
For an ordinary citizen, Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied. A delayed judgment may mean a lost job, a ruined business, years of uncertainty or even the destruction of an entire career. For a powerful individual or institution, the same delay may sometimes become an opportunity to buy time.
Key Takeaways: Why Institutional Balance Matters
- Separation of Powers: The Legislature, Executive and Judiciary must respect their distinct constitutional responsibilities. None should unnecessarily encroach upon the domain of another.
- Judicial Independence: An independent judiciary is indispensable for protecting fundamental rights and holding governments accountable.
- Judicial Overreach: Judicial intervention must remain within constitutional boundaries, even when the intentions behind it are well meaning.
- Government Accountability: Elected governments must discharge their administrative and legislative responsibilities instead of making the judiciary a permanent problem-solving institution.
- Political Responsibility: Political parties must not use judicial proceedings as substitutes for democratic dialogue and institutional reform.
- Equal Access to Justice: Ordinary citizens should not be disadvantaged because influential individuals can secure priority hearings and prolonged legal representation.
- Time-bound Justice: Reducing judicial delays is essential to prevent litigation from becoming a tool for avoiding accountability.
- Electoral Accountability: Citizens, independent institutions and the judiciary must work together to protect democratic values.
The Judiciary Cannot Become a Substitute for Democracy
We have immense respect for the Indian judiciary. Its independence, authority and constitutional responsibilities must be protected at all costs. There should be no compromise on its ability to defend fundamental rights and protect citizens against arbitrary government action.
But respect for the judiciary should not prevent us from asking uncomfortable questions. Why should every major administrative failure become a court case? Why should political parties repeatedly need judicial orders to exercise basic democratic rights? Why should students, job aspirants and ordinary voters suffer because governments and constitutional authorities cannot resolve their differences in time?
There is something fundamentally wrong when the courts become the first resort rather than the last resort for resolving routine administrative and political disputes. The judiciary cannot become a substitute for an inefficient Executive, an irresponsible Legislature or an incompetent political establishment. Nor should political parties treat the courts as another arena for their power struggles.
Judicial independence is essential for democracy, but excessive dependence on the judiciary is not a sign of a healthy democracy. A strong democracy requires strong institutions that understand their limits, fulfil their responsibilities and respect one another.
The judiciary should remain the guardian of the Constitution, not the permanent administrator of the country. The Legislature must legislate, the Executive must govern and the Judiciary must uphold the Constitution.
Otherwise, we may continue celebrating individual judicial victories while ignoring a much larger institutional failure. And that would be a far more serious threat to the health of Indian democracy.