Introduction

Judicial overreach and judicial activism are two important concepts in contemporary governance. Judicial activism means the courts are shaping social policies. Judicial overreach refers to interference by the judiciary in an area that is excessively legislative or executive. Discussing these two critical concepts shows how the judiciary is assuming an enhanced role in democratic governance.

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism can be taken to be the philosophy of the judiciary that often challenges courts to promote progressive social policies. Often, it happens at a time when the judiciary threatens or forces authorities to act in governance failure. What might be called judicial activism is an instance wherein the Supreme Court tells the Centre to evolve a drought policy.

Judicial overreach

The extreme manifestation of judicial activism is judicial overreach: courts overstep the legal limits of their authority and interfere unduly in legislative or executive matters. An example of overreach would be the Supreme Court’s abridgment of licenses to liquor shops along highways, a regulatory matter many would argue better left in the executive branch.

Concerns about judicial activism and overreach

Unduly frequent judicial interventions can easily vitiate the very essence of separation of powers, particularly when courts continue to translate Article 142 into blanket mandates. Cancelling allocations has afflicted the economy-badly not applying policy checks. And the processes of accountability being comparatively weak may invite more suspicion than respect. Excess can ultimately drain public trust-and, with it, credibility. Conclusion: While the judiciary needs judicial activism to deliver justice, unchecked overreach would start invading the functions of other branches. Both activism and restraint must be balanced so that the legitimacy of the judiciary is preserved.

Introduction

Co-operative federalism in India is the approach for co-operative interaction between the Centre and States in achieving common national goals while serving to allow independence to both. It is highly essential to governance of this country because it promotes national integration and equitable regional development.

Issues Identified

1. Weak Institutional Frameworks Institutions like the Inter-State Council, intended to promote cooperation, have been grossly underutilized, more due to rather ad hoc meetings and unbinding suggestions. RBI.

2. Role of NITI Aayog: NITI Aayog has no legal backing and always promotes the interests of the developed states, Indian Journal of Public Administration says.

3. Governor’s Office: Politically motivated acts by governors have created this frictions that strained Centre-state relations (Economic and Political Weekly).

4. Uneven Regional Development: State resource redistribution is largely uneven and skewed towards the better-off regions, leading to uneven regional development (Planning Commission).

5. Interstate Waters Conflicts: Cases of inter-state waters dispute, for example over the Cauvery River, lead to protracted litigation (Ministry of Water Resources).

Strategies of Higher Cooperation

1. Decisions of the Inter-State Council must be made binding.:.

2. Empower NITI Aayog with statutory status to ensure equal treatment to the states.

3. Reshape the governor’s role to minimize political interference.

4. Greater resource consumption in balanced regional development.

It brought the issues to NITI Aayog for resolution 5.

Conclusion Addressing these challenges would ensure stronger cooperative federalism, hence bequeathing better governance and national unity.