Amid growing political discourse over the judiciary’s role in governance, Supreme Court judge Justice B R Gavai on Monday remarked that the apex court was being accused of intruding into the domains of Parliament and the executive. His comments came during the hearing of a plea concerning regulation of sexually explicit content on OTT platforms.
“As it is, we are alleged to be encroaching upon the parliamentary and executive functions,” said Justice Gavai, who was heading the bench. He made the statement while responding to a submission by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, who sought court directions to the Union Government to curb explicit content on streaming platforms.
Justice Gavai clarified that it was not for the judiciary to step into the legislature’s domain and emphasized the need for regulatory action from the executive: “Who can control it? It is for the Union to frame a regulation in that regard.”
Remarks Amid Political Controversy
The judge’s observations come in the backdrop of sharp political remarks against the judiciary’s role in recent times. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, last week, strongly criticized the perceived judicial overreach, asserting that the Supreme Court had started functioning like a “super Parliament”.
“We have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament and have no accountability because the law of the land does not apply to them,” said Dhankhar. He also raised objections to the judiciary issuing directions to the President of India, saying such actions were beyond constitutional bounds. “We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India and on what basis? The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution under Article 145(3).”
BJP MP Nishikant Dubey further escalated the matter with a controversial post on X (formerly Twitter), stating in Hindi that if the Supreme Court was going to make laws, then Parliament and state assemblies should be shut down.
However, the BJP sought to distance itself from Dubey’s remarks. Party president J.P. Nadda clarified that Dubey’s statements were his personal opinion and did not reflect the party’s official stance.
Judicial Restraint and Constitutional Balance
The recent exchange underscores ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the political executive regarding the separation of powers. While the Supreme Court has reiterated its constitutional mandate to interpret the law, political figures have questioned the extent of its interventions, especially in matters traditionally reserved for the legislature or executive.
The court’s remarks on Monday reflect a conscious effort to maintain judicial restraint, particularly in policy matters, while asserting the importance of constitutional interpretation as its core responsibility.
The debate is likely to intensify as high-profile cases involving legislative and executive actions continue to come before the judiciary.
