Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, a cornerstone of our democracy, enshrines the principle of separation of powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Judicial activism, broadly defined as the judiciary taking a more proactive role in policy-making and social reform, has become increasingly prevalent in India. From Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to striking down constitutional amendments, the judiciary's interventions have significantly shaped the nation's trajectory. However, this trend has sparked debate regarding its consistency with the foundational principle of separation of powers. This essay will examine the interplay between judicial activism and the separation of powers, analyzing the arguments for and against the current trends.
Defining the Core Concepts
Before analyzing the conflict, it’s essential to define the key terms.
Separation of Powers
The principle of separation of powers, as envisioned by Montesquieu, advocates for distinct functions of the legislature (law-making), executive (law execution), and judiciary (law interpretation). This prevents concentration of power and safeguards against tyranny. Article 245, 163, and 167 of the Constitution exemplify this separation. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), declared this to be a basic structure of the Constitution, unamendable.
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism refers to a judicial philosophy where judges are willing to overturn precedent, and to invalidate laws or government actions they deem unconstitutional or unjust. It involves the judiciary going beyond merely interpreting laws to actively shaping policy and addressing social issues. This can manifest through PILs, creative remedies, and striking down legislation.
Historical Context and Evolution of Judicial Activism in India
Initially, the Indian judiciary adopted a relatively restrained approach. However, the introduction of PILs in the 1980s marked a significant shift. PILs, filed on behalf of marginalized communities who often lack access to justice, allowed the judiciary to address systemic issues like bonded labor, environmental degradation, and consumer rights. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha case (1984), where the Supreme Court ordered the release of thousands of bonded laborers, is a prime example of early judicial activism.
Arguments in Favor of Judicial Activism
- Addressing Systemic Failures: Judicial activism can fill gaps where the legislature and executive fail to address critical social and economic issues.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary can safeguard fundamental rights, particularly for vulnerable populations, by striking down discriminatory laws or policies.
- Upholding Constitutional Values: Active judicial intervention can ensure that government actions align with constitutional principles and values.
- Promoting Good Governance: By holding the government accountable, judicial activism can contribute to improved governance and transparency.
Arguments Against Judicial Activism and its Conflict with Separation of Powers
- Overreach and Legislative Function Creep: Critics argue that judicial activism encroaches upon the legislative domain by effectively making laws. The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines on Presidential powers under Article 356, is often cited as an example of judicial overreach.
- Judicial Legislation: When courts create new legal principles or remedies, it can be seen as judicial legislation, blurring the lines of separation of powers.
- Lack of Expertise: Judges may lack the specialized expertise required to make informed decisions on complex policy matters.
- Potential for Bias: Judicial decisions, like any human endeavor, can be influenced by personal biases, leading to unfair or inconsistent outcomes.
- Erosion of Democratic Accountability: Excessive judicial intervention can undermine the democratic process and reduce the accountability of elected representatives.
Illustrative Examples and Case Studies
| Case | Issue | Judicial Action | Potential Conflict with Separation of Powers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vishaka v. State of Karnataka (1997) | Sexual harassment in the workplace | Laid down guidelines (Vishaka Guidelines) until legislation was enacted. | Created law-making principles without legislative action. |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) | Decriminalization of Section 377 of IPC | Struck down Section 377, decriminalizing homosexuality. | Expanded the scope of fundamental rights beyond the legislature’s initial intention. |
| Article 142 of the Constitution | Power of the Supreme Court to pass orders for enforcing fundamental rights | The court has used this power to resolve disputes across various states. | Raises questions about the court’s ability to bypass established judicial processes and potentially interfere with state government functions. |
Current Trends and Concerns
Recent trends include increased scrutiny of government policies on issues like environmental protection, data privacy, and electoral reforms. The use of Article 142 has also been a point of contention. There's a growing concern that the judiciary might be exceeding its mandate, particularly when dealing with matters that are inherently political or legislative.
The Way Forward
Maintaining a balance between judicial activism and the separation of powers is crucial for a healthy democracy. The judiciary should exercise its powers judiciously, respecting the roles of the legislature and executive. Legislatures should proactively address issues that are currently being litigated, reducing the need for judicial intervention. Promoting judicial restraint and fostering greater dialogue between the judiciary, legislature, and executive are essential.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while judicial activism has undeniably played a vital role in upholding constitutional values and protecting fundamental rights in India, its increasing prevalence raises concerns about its consistency with the principle of separation of powers. A nuanced approach is required, where the judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution, but refrains from encroaching upon the legitimate functions of the legislature and executive. Striking this delicate balance is paramount for preserving the integrity of India's democratic framework.
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.