Why the Judiciary Must Stay Within Its Constitutional Boundaries
In any democracy, the doctrine of separation of powers is not just a principle — it's a safeguard. It ensures a balanced, functioning state where the legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets them. However, recent trends, especially since 2014, show the judiciary increasingly encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive, often under the guise of activism or constitutional morality.
This expansion of judicial power raises serious questions about the legitimacy, accountability, and democratic ethos of such interference. It is time to revisit and reassert the constitutional boundaries within which the judiciary must function.
1. In a Democracy, the Legislature is Supreme
In a parliamentary democracy, it is the legislature that is supreme, not the judiciary. This is because the legislature is directly elected by the people and is therefore the true embodiment of the popular will. It is the legislature that crafts laws, amends the Constitution, and determines the policy direction of the country.
On the other hand, judges are not elected by the people. They are appointed by a collegium — a system where judges select judges — making the judiciary an insulated, self-regulating body. While this may ensure judicial independence, it also means judges are not accountable to the public in the way legislators or executive leaders are.
When the judiciary begins to dictate terms to the legislature or block executive action, it undermines the fundamental democratic premise that power must rest with the people through their elected representatives.
2. Constitution: A Living Document, Not a Sacred Relic
The judiciary often cloaks its interventions in the authority of the Constitution, but it must be remembered that the Constitution is not sacrosanct. It is a living document, not a religious scripture. It was crafted by humans, for humans, and intended to evolve with time.
Since its inception, the Constitution has been amended over 100 times, reflecting the changing aspirations of society. The power to amend the Constitution lies solely with the legislature, because only the legislature represents the people. The judiciary can interpret the Constitution but has no right to freeze its meaning in time or declare itself the sole guardian of its morality.
The Constitution exists to serve the people, not the other way around. It must evolve through democratic processes, not judicial activism. Any change in law or framework must be the result of public will, not the personal interpretations of a few unelected individuals.
3. Accountability and Encroachment
The executive and legislature are directly accountable to the people. If they fail in their duties, they face public backlash, elections, and even legal scrutiny. However, the judiciary enjoys insulation from public accountability. Judges cannot be voted out, their appointments are not transparent, and their conduct rarely invites consequences.
Just because the executive or legislature may falter at times does not give the judiciary a license to take over their functions. The remedy for poor governance lies in democratic correction, not judicial overreach.
The more the judiciary interferes in matters of policy and governance, the more it erodes institutional boundaries and creates a power vacuum that is undemocratic and unaccountable.4. Judiciary Must Respect Its Boundaries
Supporters of judicial activism argue that courts only step in when other organs fail. But this argument, if unchecked, becomes a justification for permanent judicial supremacy. The judiciary's role is to interpret laws, not to make or implement them.
By taking on tasks meant for the executive or legislature — such as deciding on environmental policy, regulating economic decisions, or issuing guidelines on social conduct — the judiciary undermines institutional competence and creates policy paralysis.
Each pillar of democracy must stay in its lane. A healthy democracy thrives when all institutions respect their boundaries and complement, not override, one another.
5. The Judiciary Is Not Beyond Criticism
For a long time, the judiciary has been seen as the final word — almost sacred and above criticism. But in a democracy, no institution should be immune to public scrutiny.
The judiciary, too, has had its share of controversies — opaque collegium appointments, internal lobbying, ideological biases, and selective judgments. A recent case starkly illustrates the double standards within the system: a huge cash pile was discovered in the house of a judge, yet no FIR has been filed, and no action has been taken.
Had such an amount been found in the house of a legislator, executive officer, or common citizen, swift police action, FIRs, and even arrests would have followed. But the judge in question was merely transferred and continues to attend court regularly, as if nothing happened.
This incident exposes the glaring lack of accountability within the judiciary. If the judiciary cannot clean its own house, it has no moral right to interfere in the functioning of other institutions or hold them to higher standards.
In a system built on transparency, it is only fair that judges of all courts — from subordinate to Supreme — be required to declare their assets annually, just as elected representatives do. This simple step can go a long way in restoring public confidence and ensuring that judges are not seen as a privileged class above the norms of democratic accountability.
Conclusion: Honour Democracy, Respect the Mandate
Democracy rests on the sacred principle that power belongs to the people. This power is expressed through elections and represented by the legislature. No unelected body — not even the judiciary — can claim supremacy over that mandate.
Judicial overreach may be disguised as activism, but its consequences are dangerous: it weakens democratic structures, reduces institutional effectiveness, and fosters a climate of elitist moralism over people's participation.
The judiciary must perform its role as an interpreter of laws, not as a maker or enforcer. It must respect the supremacy of the legislature, acknowledge its own limitations, and submit itself to the same standards of accountability it demands of others.
Only then can our democracy remain truly by the people, for the people, and of the people — not by judges, for judges, and of judges.
"When judges forget they are interpreters and begin to act as rulers, democracy quietly dies behind the veil of robes."
Sat Apr 19, 2025
Launch your Graphy