Author: Poornesha Palanivelan, Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli
TO THE POINT
The increasing involvement of the judiciary in political and governance matters has become a defining feature of Indian constitutional democracy. This phenomenon, known as the judicialization of politics, refers to the expanding role of courts in resolving disputes that are political in nature or have significant political consequences. In India, this trend has emerged in response to legislative inertia, executive arbitrariness, and governance failures. While judicial intervention has often strengthened democratic accountability and protected fundamental rights, it has also raised serious concerns regarding judicial overreach and the erosion of the separation of powers. This article examines whether judicialization in India functions as a necessary guardian of democracy or poses a threat to democratic legitimacy by exceeding constitutional boundaries.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Judicialization of politics operates within the framework of judicial review, a power vested in constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution. Judicial review enables courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive actions. The Supreme Court has recognized judicial review as part of the basic structure doctrine, thereby making it immune from constitutional amendment.
The doctrine of separation of powers, though not explicitly codified, is implicit in the constitutional scheme. Judicial activism, public interest litigation (PIL), suo motu cognizance, and continuing mandamus have expanded the judiciary’s functional role beyond traditional adjudication. These mechanisms allow courts to issue policy directions, monitor executive implementation, and intervene in political processes. While such interventions are often justified in the name of constitutional morality and rule of law, they blur the distinction between adjudicatory and governance functions, raising questions of institutional competence and democratic accountability.
THE PROOF
The judicialization of politics in India gained momentum after the Emergency period (1975–77), when the judiciary sought to reassert its role as the protector of civil liberties. The introduction and expansion of Public Interest Litigation lowered procedural barriers, allowing courts to entertain petitions on behalf of disadvantaged groups. Over time, this evolved into a powerful instrument for judicial intervention in governance.
Courts have intervened in matters such as corruption investigations, environmental regulation, electoral reforms, police reforms, and federal disputes. In many instances, judicial action has filled a governance vacuum created by executive inaction or legislative failure. However, judicial intervention has also extended into areas involving complex policy choices, such as economic regulation and administrative decision-making, where courts may lack institutional expertise.
Empirical observations reveal a paradox: judicial intervention is widely welcomed when it corrects political failures but criticized when it substitutes judicial preferences for democratic choices. This dual perception underscores the need to evaluate judicialization not in absolute terms but through its constitutional justification and practical impact.
ABSTRACT
The judicialization of politics in India represents a significant constitutional development shaped by the judiciary’s evolving role in democratic governance. As courts increasingly adjudicate politically sensitive matters, they operate at the intersection of law and politics. This article examines the constitutional basis, evolution, and consequences of judicialization in India, focusing on whether it strengthens democracy by enforcing accountability and protecting rights or undermines democratic principles through judicial overreach. By analyzing key judicial decisions and doctrines, the article argues that judicialization is a double-edged phenomenon whose legitimacy depends on the judiciary’s adherence to constitutional limits and institutional restraint.
CASE LAWS
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
This landmark judgment established the basic structure doctrine, which limits Parliament’s amending power under Article 368. By asserting that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review, the Court positioned itself as the ultimate guardian of constitutional identity. This decision laid the foundation for judicial intervention in politically sensitive constitutional questions.
2. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
The Court’s failure to protect fundamental rights during the Emergency exposed the dangers of excessive executive power. This judgment later became a reference point for judicial introspection and led to a more assertive judiciary committed to preventing constitutional breakdowns.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
By expanding the scope of Article 21 and introducing substantive due process, the Court strengthened judicial scrutiny of executive action. This case marked a shift toward rights-based judicial intervention in governance.
4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The Court subjected the use of Article 356 to judicial review, limiting arbitrary dismissal of State governments. This decision reinforced federalism and exemplified judicial intervention to curb political misuse of constitutional powers.
5. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
The judiciary monitored corruption investigations involving high-ranking officials, justifying intervention due to executive inaction. While praised for enforcing accountability, it also raised concerns about courts supervising executive agencies.
6. Common Cause v. Union of India (1999)
The Court addressed issues related to political funding and misuse of public office, emphasizing transparency and ethical governance. This case demonstrated judicial involvement in political morality and institutional accountability.
7. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2G Spectrum Case)
The cancellation of telecom licenses on grounds of arbitrariness highlighted judicial intervention in economic policy. While the judgment upheld constitutional principles, it also intensified debates on judicial interference in policy matters.
8. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (Coal Block Allocation Case)
The Court invalidated coal block allocations based on the public trust doctrine, reinforcing accountability in resource distribution. However, the ruling also illustrated the judiciary’s expanding role in economic governance.
9. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
By recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right, the Court reaffirmed its role in protecting individual liberty against state power, even in politically sensitive areas involving surveillance and data governance.
10. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
The Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation, demonstrating judicial restraint in matters involving political speech and legislative policy choices.
11. Shiv Sena v. Union of India (2023)
Judicial intervention in matters of political defection and gubernatorial discretion highlighted the judiciary’s growing role in resolving constitutional crises with deep political implications.
CONCLUSION
The judicialization of politics in India is both a democratic safeguard and a constitutional challenge. Judicial intervention has strengthened rights protection, ensured executive accountability, and preserved constitutional values in the face of political failures. At the same time, excessive judicial involvement in policy-making risks undermining democratic legitimacy and the separation of powers.
Judicialization must therefore be guided by restraint, constitutional necessity, and respect for institutional boundaries. Courts must intervene where constitutional violations are evident but refrain from substituting their judgment for that of elected representatives. A balanced judiciary—neither passive nor overreaching—is essential for the healthy functioning of India’s constitutional democracy.
FAQS
1. What is judicialization of politics?
Judicialization of politics refers to the growing involvement of courts in resolving political disputes and governance-related issues that traditionally fall within the domain of the executive or legislature.
2. Why is judicialization prominent in India?
It is prominent due to executive arbitrariness, legislative inaction, governance failures, and increased public reliance on courts for justice and accountability.
3. How is judicialization linked to judicial review?
Judicial review empowers courts to examine political actions for constitutional compliance, thereby forming the legal basis for judicialization.
4. What role does PIL play in judicialization?
Public Interest Litigation allows courts to intervene in matters of public concern, significantly expanding judicial involvement in political and administrative issues.
5. Is judicialization a threat to democracy?
Judicialization threatens democracy only when courts exceed constitutional limits and replace democratic decision-making with judicial preferences.
6. What is judicial overreach?
Judicial overreach occurs when courts intrude into executive or legislative functions without constitutional necessity or institutional competence.
7. How does judicialization protect democracy?
It protects democracy by enforcing constitutional supremacy, safeguarding fundamental rights, and ensuring accountability of political actors.
8. What is the relationship between separation of powers and judicialization?
Judicialization tests the separation of powers by expanding judicial authority, making restraint essential to preserve institutional balance.
9. Can judicial restraint coexist with judicial activism?
Yes, judicial activism can coexist with restraint when courts intervene only to correct constitutional violations and avoid policy substitution.
10. What is the ideal approach to judicialization?
The ideal approach is a balanced one, where courts act as constitutional guardians without undermining democratic institutions.
