Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The principle of ‘separation of powers’, a cornerstone of democratic governance, posits distinct roles for the legislature, executive, and judiciary. While the legislature formulates laws and the executive implements them, the judiciary interprets these laws and ensures their constitutionality. The assertion that “Judges should not govern the country. They can lay down a law, not interfere with governance” highlights a critical debate regarding the extent of judicial power. This statement reflects concerns about judicial overreach and the potential erosion of democratic principles when the judiciary ventures beyond its interpretative role and actively engages in policy-making or executive functions.
Understanding the Distinct Roles
The judiciary’s primary function is to adjudicate disputes and interpret the law, ensuring it aligns with the Constitution. This is enshrined in Article 124-147 of the Indian Constitution. Governance, on the other hand, involves policy formulation, implementation, and administration – functions constitutionally assigned to the executive branch (Articles 74-78). A clear demarcation is vital for maintaining the balance of power and preventing tyranny.
Arguments Against Judicial Interference in Governance
- Violation of Separation of Powers: Excessive judicial intervention can blur the lines between judicial interpretation and executive action, undermining the separation of powers doctrine.
- Lack of Democratic Legitimacy: Judges are not elected and therefore lack the democratic mandate enjoyed by the executive and legislature. Interfering in governance can be seen as undemocratic.
- Policy Expertise: Judges may lack the specialized knowledge and experience necessary to make informed decisions on complex policy matters.
- Potential for Judicial Activism: Unrestrained judicial intervention can lead to ‘judicial activism’, where judges substitute their own policy preferences for those of the elected representatives.
Arguments for Judicial Review and Limited Intervention
- Upholding Constitutional Values: The judiciary has a duty to protect fundamental rights and ensure that the executive acts within the bounds of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973).
- Filling Legislative Vacuums: In the absence of clear legislation, the judiciary may need to provide guidance on matters of public importance. This is often seen in areas like environmental law.
- Accountability and Transparency: Judicial intervention can promote accountability and transparency in governance by scrutinizing executive actions.
- Protection of Minority Rights: The judiciary can safeguard the rights of vulnerable groups who may be marginalized by the political process.
Examples of Judicial Intervention in India
| Case/Situation | Nature of Intervention | Outcome/Impact |
|---|---|---|
| MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) – Taj Mahal Pollution | Directing closure of polluting industries near the Taj Mahal. | Improved air quality and preservation of the monument. |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) | Formulating guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace. | Led to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. |
| National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015) | Struck down the NJAC Act as unconstitutional. | Reinforced the collegium system for judicial appointments. |
The Need for a Balanced Approach
While judicial review is essential, it must be exercised with restraint and deference to the elected branches of government. The judiciary should focus on interpreting the law and ensuring its constitutionality, rather than substituting its own policy preferences. A robust dialogue between the judiciary, executive, and legislature is crucial for maintaining a healthy democracy. The doctrine of ‘basic structure’ established in Kesavananda Bharati provides a framework for judicial review while safeguarding the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the statement that judges should not govern is largely valid. While judicial review is a vital component of a constitutional democracy, it should be exercised judiciously and with respect for the separation of powers. The judiciary’s role is to interpret and uphold the law, not to supplant the functions of the executive or legislature. A balanced approach, characterized by restraint, dialogue, and a commitment to constitutional principles, is essential for preserving the integrity of the democratic system.
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.