Do detailed operational directions by the Supreme Court on policing amount to judicial overreach? Illustrate with recent examples.

Judicial overreach happens when courts stop interpreting the law and start doing the executive's job. Policing is a State subject, but the Supreme Court now often issues step-by-step operational directions to the police. Most of these fill gaps the executive left open, but a few go too far.

Recent operational directions

• G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026): police must register an immediate FIR for every missing person with no preliminary enquiry. The Court also ordered an MHA anti-trafficking portal, activation of district AHTUs (Anti-Human Trafficking Units) and Aadhaar verification of recovered children [1].
• Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020): CCTV cameras in all police stations and in the offices of investigating agencies [2].
• Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006): seven directives, including State Security Commissions, a fixed tenure for the DGP and Police Complaints Authorities [3].

Why they look like overreach

• Separation of powers: portals, special units and procedures are design choices for the executive. Courts lack field data and do not answer for how things turn out.
• They bypass filters Parliament wrote into law: the BNSS lets police hold a 14-day preliminary enquiry with a DSP's prior permission [4]. The blanket rule gives a report of a missing adult less screening than a report of an actual offence.
• Strain on police and on personal choice: FIRs for adults who left home voluntarily take up scarce investigating time. They can also turn a lawful personal choice into a criminal case (Article 21).
• Weak compliance: States have carried out the Prakash Singh directives unevenly, which shows the limits of courts running administration.

Why they are justified

• Executive inaction: governments shelved police-reform recommendations for years before the Court stepped in [3].
• Protecting the vulnerable: after Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, MHA made FIRs mandatory for missing children [5]. This ended the practice of telling families to "search first".
• Rights enforcement: custodial abuse and trafficking violate fundamental rights, and Article 32 requires courts to provide remedies.
• Directions lead to action: MHA's Operation Smile and Operation Muskaan were national drives to rescue missing children [6]. The Track Child and Khoya-Paya portals now link police with child-care institutions [7].

Such directions are corrective, not a takeover of executive power, when they fill gaps to protect rights. They become overreach when blanket rules ignore safeguards in the statute and the capacity of police on the ground. The way forward is a dialogue between institutions. Courts should set outcome standards and monitor them within fixed timelines. MHA should frame a two-track SOP: an immediate FIR for children and for any sign of trafficking, and a short DSP-approved enquiry for adults who appear to have left voluntarily. This protects rights under Article 21, respects the separation of powers and advances SDG 16.