Chief Justice of India B R Gavai made a strong statement on Thursday, asserting that judicial activism should not be allowed to morph into judicial terrorism. His comments came during a crucial presidential reference hearing that raised significant constitutional questions surrounding the extent of the judiciary’s power in relation to state legislative affairs. The case at hand focuses on whether the judiciary can set deadlines for governors and the president to act on bills passed by state assemblies.
The matter has drawn considerable attention as it strikes at the heart of the delicate balance of power between the executive and judiciary. Chief Justice Gavai’s remarks were pointed, reflecting his concerns over the increasing encroachment of judicial authority into the functions of elected bodies. The reference itself, made by the President, seeks clarity on the constitutional limitations of the judiciary in dictating timelines for the executive branch to assent to or reject bills passed by state legislatures.
At the heart of the issue is the role of the governor in the Indian political system. Governors, who are appointed by the President, play a critical part in the legislative process. While they are required to act on state bills, their power to withhold assent or request reconsideration has often been a point of contention. In this context, the reference questions whether the judiciary has the constitutional authority to set timelines for the governor’s action.
Chief Justice Gavai’s words underscore the principle that the courts must act within their constitutional boundaries, particularly when addressing the powers of the executive. “The courts must ensure that judicial activism does not lead to judicial terrorism,” Gavai remarked, emphasising that the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, not to interfere unduly in the functioning of the executive. His remarks have sparked debate, with some viewing them as a warning against judicial overreach, while others argue that the judiciary must step in when executive inaction threatens the constitutional order.
The issue of judicial activism has been a subject of increasing scrutiny in India. Over the years, courts have stepped into areas traditionally considered the domain of the executive, such as environmental policy, police reforms, and even public health. Some legal experts have expressed concern that this trend could lead to an erosion of the separation of powers, while others see it as a necessary check on executive authority.
The matter also brings to the fore the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature. Governors, who are appointed by the President, often find themselves at the centre of political controversy. While governors are expected to act impartially, political pressure from the state or central government can sometimes influence their decisions. This has led to calls for greater clarity on the roles and responsibilities of governors, especially when it comes to assenting to bills passed by state assemblies.
During the hearing, the court also heard arguments from various legal experts who debated the constitutional implications of the question posed. On one hand, there are those who believe that setting timelines for governors and the President is necessary to ensure the timely passage of legislation. On the other hand, opponents argue that such measures would undermine the autonomy of the executive and infringe upon the constitutional structure.
The debate over the scope of judicial power is not limited to this case alone. Across the country, there have been numerous instances where the judiciary has stepped in to address perceived inadequacies in the functioning of other branches of government. Some observers have argued that this is an inevitable consequence of India’s democratic system, where the courts are called upon to act as guardians of the Constitution. However, others have raised concerns about the potential dangers of excessive judicial interference in executive matters.
CJI highlights judiciary’s shared responsibility in case backlog 