The concept of judicial review has evolved from being a constitutional safeguard to a contentious issue of judicial activism and potential overreach in India’s democratic framework. The Supreme Court’s expanding role in governance through PIL and suo moto actions has sparked debates about the delicate balance between judicial intervention and separation of powers.

Arguments Supporting Judicial Review

• Constitutional Mandate: Article 13, 32, and 226 explicitly empower courts to review laws and executive actions to protect fundamental rights and constitutional values.
• Democratic Safeguard: Judicial review acts as a crucial check against legislative and executive excesses, ensuring accountability (e.g., striking down Section 66A of IT Act).
• Social Justice: Courts have championed citizens’ rights through landmark judgments like Vishaka Guidelines and Right to Privacy, addressing legislative gaps.

Concerns of Judicial Overreach

• Separation of Powers: Courts sometimes venture into policy-making domains (e.g., firecracker ban, National Anthem in theaters) traditionally reserved for elected representatives.
• Democratic Process: The rejection of NJAC Bill through judicial review raised questions about judiciary’s self-regulation and accountability.
• Implementation Challenges: Court orders on complex policy matters often face practical difficulties in implementation, affecting governance efficiency.

Balancing Mechanisms

• Self-Restraint: Courts need to exercise judicial restraint in matters of policy decisions and administrative expertise.
• Institutional Dialogue: Enhanced communication between judiciary and other branches can prevent unnecessary interventions.
• Constitutional Boundaries: Clear demarcation of roles and responsibilities among different organs of state can minimize conflicts.

Judicial review remains a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy, but its application must balance between necessary intervention and respect for democratic processes. The way forward lies in developing robust institutional mechanisms for accountability while preserving the independence of judiciary, as demonstrated in recent reforms like the e-courts project and National Judicial Data Grid.