Judiciary Must Not Cross Line into ‘Judicial Terrorism’, Warns Chief Justice of India

NEW DELHI:
In a bold and thought-provoking address at the prestigious Oxford Union, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice B R Gavai underscored the transformative power of the Indian Constitution while cautioning against judicial overreach. Describing the Constitution as a “quiet revolution etched in ink,” CJI Gavai emphasized its role in empowering the marginalized and ensuring justice for all.

Delivering a lecture on the theme ‘From Representation to Realisation: Embodying the Constitution’s Promise’, the Chief Justice stirred debate by warning that while judicial activism has its place, it must not spiral into what he termed “judicial terrorism”.

“Judicial activism is bound to stay,” he said in response to a question by legal news portal Bar and Bench. “At the same time, judicial activism should not be turned into judicial terrorism. At times, one may exceed limits and enter areas where the judiciary should ideally not intrude.”

CJI Gavai stressed that while courts can and must intervene when the legislature or executive fails to uphold constitutional duties, the judiciary should exercise restraint. Judicial review, he said, should only be used in exceptional cases where a statute violates the basic structure of the Constitution or is “patently arbitrary or discriminatory.”

CJI Gavai’s remarks come at a time when judicial boundaries are being debated nationally. In April, the Supreme Court recommended that the President of India decide within three months on bills reserved for her by the Governor—a historic intervention aimed at curbing legislative delays.

Following this, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking the Court’s advisory opinion on whether Governors are bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 200, particularly when presented with a Bill. The President further questioned if a Governor’s discretion can be subjected to judicial scrutiny, referencing Article 361, which offers constitutional immunity to the President and Governors.

Justice Gavai acknowledged the judiciary’s role as a watchdog of democracy but reiterated that this role must align with the separation of powers.

“There is a clear constitutional boundary, and that power [of judicial review] should be used sparingly — only when absolutely necessary,” he said.

His comments have sparked conversation among legal scholars and political observers alike, as India navigates the complex interplay between judicial responsibility and constitutional limits.

As the debate over the scope of judicial authority intensifies, Justice Gavai’s Oxford address serves as a timely reminder that the pursuit of justice must always respect the pillars of democratic governance.