“Beyond the Bench: Examining the Limits of Judicial Discretion and the Scope for Abuse in India’s Higher Judiciary”

The Indian judiciary, revered as the guardian of constitutional values, often exercises wide discretionary powers, particularly within the higher judiciary. While judicial discretion is essential for interpreting statutes and delivering equitable justice, its unchecked use poses significant risks. This paper explores the nuanced boundaries of judicial discretion in India's higher judiciary and investigates the potential for its abuse. Drawing from landmark judgments, constitutional provisions, and recent instances of perceived overreach, the study critically analyzes the balance between judicial independence and accountability. It highlights how subjective interpretations, selective activism, and lack of institutional oversight can sometimes lead to inconsistent or biased rulings. Moreover, the research delves into the implications of such discretion on democratic processes, public trust, and separation of powers. By comparing judicial frameworks in other democracies and examining recommendations from legal scholars and commissions, this paper proposes the need for structured guidelines to ensure responsible exercise of discretion. Ultimately, the paper argues for a reimagined judicial accountability mechanism that maintains the integrity of the bench while curbing excesses. In doing so, it seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse on legal reform, transparency, and the evolving role of the judiciary in India’s democratic fabric.

Judicial discretion, Judicial accountability, Higher judiciary, Judicial overreach, Separation of powers

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (Oxford Univ. Press 1966). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Nikita Tandon & Ishani Gupta, “Judicial Accountability and the Challenge of Judicial Discretion in India,” International Journal of Constitutional Law, available at [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. https://academic.oup.com/icon/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icon/moaf014/8148805. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. “Gag Orders and Judicial Discretion in India,” International Journal of Financial Management & Research, https://www.ijfmr.com/research-paper.php?id=17606 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. “Rule of Law: Indian Scenario,” International Journal of Financial Management & Research, https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/1/1572.pdf. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, India, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. https://legislative.gov.in/actsofparliamentfromtheyear/code-criminal-procedure-1973. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation 221 (Oxford Univ. Press 1966). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Mark Tushnet, Advanced Introduction to Comparative Constitutional Law 45 (Edward Elgar Publ’g 2014). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cass R. Sunstein, The Partial Constitution 10 (Harvard Univ. Press 1993). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Sujit Choudhry et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution 154 (Oxford Univ. Press 2016). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Conflict of Law in the Safeguarding of Malaysian Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Way Forward
• Alternative Dispute Resolution in India: A Brief Overview Justice Delayed is Justice Denied. - William E. Gladstone
• The Role of Museums in Safeguarding Cultural Heritage Rights: Balancing Access and Repatriation
• An Evaluation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' Significance and Application in Nigeria
• The Role of International Law in Shaping National Immigration Policies.