When Courts and the Executive Clashed, Delhi's Odd–Even Rule Polarized Men and Women

📍 What Happened: An Unexpected Executive–Judiciary Clash in New Delhi

Policy processes often depend on how policymakers perceive public support. This study asks whether the character of the policy process itself—cooperation versus confrontation among governing branches—shapes public backing for a policy. The test case is an unexpected legal and political dispute in New Delhi over exemptions for women in the odd–even vehicle rule, a transport-based measure intended to reduce air pollution.

📊 How the Timing Created a Natural Test

• Two survey waves bracketed the dispute, creating a plausibly exogenous opportunity to observe opinion before and after the clash.
• The disputed issue centered on whether women should receive exemptions from the odd–even driving restrictions.
• The timed surveys measured public support for the odd–even policy and attitudes across relevant subgroups.

🔑 Key Findings

• Overall public support for the odd–even rule was not reduced by the visible clash between the executive and the judiciary.
• The institutional conflict did, however, polarize opinions along gender lines: responses shifted in ways linked to the contested exemptions for women.

⚖️ Why It Matters

• A public confrontation between branches of government does not necessarily erode aggregate policy support, but can reshape who supports a policy.
• Institutional clashes may therefore alter the distribution of political support (for example, by gender) even when average approval is unchanged, with implications for policy design, messaging, and legislative strategy.

This evidence offers new insight into how interbranch conflict influences mass policy preferences without assuming uniform erosion of support.