Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution establishes a system of separation of powers, assigning legislative functions to Parliament, executive functions to the government, and judicial functions to the judiciary. However, in recent decades, the judiciary in India has increasingly been called upon to perform functions traditionally associated with the legislature and the executive, particularly in areas where these branches have been perceived as failing to act decisively or effectively. This phenomenon, often termed ‘judicial activism’ or even ‘judicial overreach’, stems from factors like legislative inertia, executive inaction, and the judiciary’s commitment to fundamental rights and constitutional principles. The increasing number of judicial interventions in policy matters necessitates a critical examination of this evolving role.
Traditional Roles and the Shift
Traditionally, the legislature is responsible for making laws, the executive for implementing them, and the judiciary for interpreting them and ensuring their adherence to the Constitution. However, several factors have led to the judiciary assuming roles beyond its traditional remit. These include a perceived lack of responsiveness from the political branches, gaps in legislation, and the need to protect fundamental rights.
Judiciary as a Legislature
The judiciary has, on numerous occasions, stepped into the legislative domain by:
- Reading down or reading into statutes: The Supreme Court has often interpreted laws in a manner that expands or restricts their scope, effectively legislating from the bench. For example, in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, in the absence of specific legislation at the time. These guidelines were later codified into the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
- Filling legislative vacuums: When the legislature fails to enact laws on crucial matters, the judiciary has intervened to provide legal frameworks. The case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987), concerning environmental pollution, led the Court to issue numerous directions regarding pollution control, effectively creating a regulatory regime in the absence of comprehensive environmental legislation.
- Judicial Pronouncements having the force of law: Several pronouncements of the Supreme Court have attained the status of law, guiding administrative actions and shaping policy. The directions issued in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) regarding the right to livelihood of pavement dwellers are a prime example.
Judiciary as an Executive
The judiciary’s assumption of executive functions is evident in:
- Directing executive action: The Supreme Court and High Courts frequently issue directions to government agencies to perform their duties, often monitoring the implementation of these directions. For instance, in the PUCL v. State of Bihar (2003) case, the Court directed the government to implement various measures to improve the conditions of prisoners.
- Establishing monitoring committees: The judiciary often establishes committees to oversee the implementation of its orders and to address specific issues. The Court appointed monitoring committees to oversee the cleaning of the Ganga River (MC Mehta v. Union of India) and to address issues related to food security.
- Appointment and Removal of Officials: In cases like the appointment of CBI Director, the Supreme Court has intervened to ensure transparency and fairness, effectively influencing executive decisions.
Reasons for Judicial Activism
- Legislative Delay and Inaction: Frequent delays in enacting legislation and a lack of political will to address pressing issues often compel the judiciary to intervene.
- Executive Inefficiency: Inefficient implementation of laws and policies by the executive branch can lead to judicial intervention.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution often drives it to intervene in cases where these rights are violated.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The emergence of PIL has provided a mechanism for citizens to approach the courts on behalf of marginalized sections of society, leading to increased judicial involvement in policy matters.
Criticisms and Concerns
While judicial activism can be beneficial in certain circumstances, it also raises concerns about:
- Separation of Powers: Excessive judicial intervention can blur the lines between the three branches of government, undermining the principle of separation of powers.
- Democratic Legitimacy: Judges are not elected representatives and therefore lack the democratic legitimacy of the legislature and executive.
- Judicial Overreach: Intervention in policy matters can lead to the judiciary overstepping its boundaries and encroaching upon the domains of the other branches.
| Function | Legislative Role | Executive Role |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Intervention | Reading down statutes, filling legislative vacuums | Directing executive action, establishing monitoring committees |
| Example | Vishaka Guidelines (Sexual Harassment Act) | PUCL v. State of Bihar (Prison Reforms) |
Conclusion
The judiciary’s expanded role in recent years reflects a complex interplay of factors, including legislative and executive shortcomings, and a commitment to constitutional values. While judicial activism has undoubtedly contributed to the protection of fundamental rights and the improvement of governance, it is crucial to strike a balance between judicial intervention and the preservation of the separation of powers. Strengthening the legislative and executive branches, ensuring timely enactment of laws, and improving the efficiency of governance are essential to reduce the need for excessive judicial intervention and uphold the principles of democratic governance.
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.