[Answered] The phrase “Judicial Despotism” is increasingly invoked in contemporary debates concerning the Indian judiciary. Critically examine the arguments for and against this assertion, evaluating recent judicial pronouncements and actions. Discuss the potential consequences of such a trend for India’s democratic fabric and governance mechanisms.

Introduction

The term “Judicial Despotism” refers to a scenario where the judiciary assumes excessive powers, often stepping into domains reserved for the legislature or executive, potentially disrupting the constitutional balance of powers. While India’s judiciary has historically played a crucial role in protecting constitutional rights, its recent actions have raised concerns of overreach and unilateralism.

Arguments Supporting Judicial Despotism

1. Encroachment on Policy Domains: The Supreme Court’s intervention in the management of COVID-19, including oxygen allocation and vaccine pricing, illustrated a judicial micromanagement of executive functions. The ban on firecrackers, regulation of liquor shops near highways, and environmental clearances bypassing policy inputs show regulatory encroachment.
2. Opaque Collegium System: Despite criticism from the Second ARC and Law Commission (230th Report), the Collegium system remains non-transparent, with no publicly stated criteria for appointments or rejections.
3. Suo Moto Actions Without Accountability: In 2020, the SC took suo moto cognizance of the migrant workers’ plight, but its initial inaction and delayed response drew criticism for selective urgency.
4. Delays in Key Constitutional Matters: Cases like abrogation of Article 370, electoral bonds, and CAA challenges remain unlisted or pending for years, raising questions on judicial priorities.

Arguments Against the Notion of Despotism

3. Judicial Intervention Due to Institutional Vacuums: In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court framed guidelines to protect women against sexual harassment in the absence of legislation. Similar proactive steps were seen in Right to Food, Right to Education, and Right to Privacy (2017).
4. Protection of Individual Liberties:
   • Navtej Singh Johar (2018) decriminalized homosexuality.
   • Joseph Shine (2019) struck down the adultery law—both safeguarding constitutional morality against societal majoritarianism.
5. Environmental and Social Justice: Through cases like MC Mehta v. Union of India, the Court has safeguarded environmental rights and held industries and governments accountable.

Implications for India’s Democracy and Governance

1. Erosion of Separation of Powers: Judicial encroachments may lead to executive inertia and legislative passivity, weakening institutional checks and balances.
2. Democratic Deficit: Judicial overreach bypasses democratic deliberation, especially when courts issue directions akin to legislation or governance.
3. Public Trust Concerns: Selective interventions and delayed constitutional reviews may damage the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary.

Conclusion

While an assertive judiciary is essential for upholding constitutionalism and protecting citizen rights, unchecked judicial activism may morph into judicial despotism, risking the foundational principles of democratic governance. The need of the hour is judicial accountability, institutional balance, and transparency, especially in the context of India@2047 and the aspiration of becoming a mature constitutional democracy.