The Courts have also delivered numerous, important cases which emphasize the rights of victims of gender-based violence and continue to send out strong messages by imposing tough sentences and through direct remarks that gender violence is not acceptable and that the State will be held accountable for upholding the rights of women. Landmark cases include Omar v Government of the Republic of South Africa & others3 which upheld the provision for protective orders in the Domestic Violence Act.

When judiciary encroaches upon the domain of the Executive, as in this case, where the learned judge disregarded the eligibility criteria and the recruitment policy of the Executive Authority and assumed the function of the Executive, it is said to commit judicial overreach – which occurs when a court acts beyond its jurisdiction and interferes in areas which fall within the Executive and/or the Legislature’s mandate.

Higher judiciary deciding on Diwali fireworks, banning of use vehicles of certain make after 10 or 15 years, monitoring police investigations, denying the executive any role in the appointment of judges through collegiums, invalidating the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act seeking to enforce accountability and transparencyetc were some instances referred to by Shri Naidu as being perceived as instances of judicial overreach.

The question whether the Central Government can be held vicariously liable for the offence of rape committed by the employees of the Railways was answered in negative by relying upon the judgments in State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati AIR 1962 SC 933, State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam AIR 1967 SC 1885, Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358, N. Nagendra Rao and Company v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205 and State of Maharasthra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke (1995) 5 SCC 659.

Recent Updates