Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The doctrine of separation of powers, championed by Montesquieu, posits a division of governmental authority among the legislature, executive, and judiciary to prevent tyranny. India's Constitution, while not explicitly enshrining this doctrine, implicitly recognizes it through Article 50, advocating for separation of powers. However, the judiciary, equipped with the power of judicial review under Article 13 and 32, frequently interprets laws and actions of the other branches, leading to debates about potential overreach and dilution of the separation of powers. The question challenges us to critically examine whether judicial interventions have indeed eroded this fundamental principle.
Understanding the Separation of Powers and Judicial Review
The traditional separation of powers model envisioned distinct roles: legislature makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary adjudicates disputes. In India, this model is adapted to a parliamentary system where executive accountability is to the legislature. However, the judiciary's power of judicial review, derived from the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), allows it to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
Instances of Judicial Intervention – Has the Judiciary Overstepped?
Several instances have sparked debate regarding judicial overreach:
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The judiciary's acceptance and expansion of PIL jurisdiction, particularly in the 1980s, allowed it to address issues previously handled by the legislature and executive, such as environmental protection and consumer rights. While beneficial, critics argue it encroached on the domain of other branches.
- Appointment of Bureaucrats: In cases like S.C. Advocates Association v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court intervened in the process of appointing bureaucrats, impacting executive authority.
- Reviewing Policy Decisions: The judiciary has, at times, reviewed policy decisions of the government, such as those related to spectrum allocation (Tejas Network Services Ltd. v. Department of Telecommunications, 2012), raising concerns about judicial interference in policy formulation.
- Contempt of Court: The judiciary's power to punish for contempt, while essential for upholding its authority, has been criticized as potentially stifling freedom of expression and encroaching on legislative power to define criminal offenses.
Arguments in Favor of Judicial Intervention
Defenders of judicial activism argue that these interventions are necessary to:
- Uphold the Constitution: The judiciary acts as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that other branches adhere to its principles and fundamental rights are protected.
- Check Abuse of Power: Judicial review serves as a vital check on the potential abuse of power by the legislature and executive.
- Promote Accountability: The judiciary's scrutiny compels the other branches to act responsibly and transparently.
- Address Systemic Failures: In situations where the legislature and executive fail to address critical issues, the judiciary steps in to provide remedies.
A Balanced Perspective: Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism
The debate isn't about eliminating judicial review but about finding the right balance between judicial restraint and activism. While the judiciary must exercise its power judiciously, avoiding unnecessary interference in policy matters, it also has a responsibility to safeguard the Constitution and protect citizens' rights. The concept of 'basic structure doctrine' itself, while empowering the judiciary, also necessitates a degree of self-restraint.
The Role of Collegiality and Transparency
Enhancing transparency in judicial decision-making and strengthening the collegial system for judicial appointments can mitigate concerns about judicial overreach. A more robust and accountable judiciary is crucial for maintaining public trust and upholding the separation of powers.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the judiciary’s interventions have, at times, appeared to dilute the traditional theory of separation of powers, they are often justified as necessary to uphold constitutional principles and protect fundamental rights. The key lies in striking a balance – exercising judicial power responsibly and judiciously, recognizing the limitations of its role, and fostering greater transparency and accountability within the judiciary itself. The evolution of judicial review in India necessitates a continuous re-evaluation of this delicate balance to ensure a robust and vibrant democracy.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.