Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, inspired by the principle of Montesquieu, enshrines the doctrine of separation of powers, dividing authority among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. However, the judiciary’s power of judicial review, and its subsequent evolution into ‘judicial legislation’ – the practice of courts issuing directions to the executive to formulate policy – is often seen as a potential transgression of this fundamental principle. The increasing number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) seeking executive guidelines highlights this tension. While seemingly antithetical to the separation of powers, these petitions often arise from systemic failures and a need to enforce fundamental rights, making them a crucial mechanism for accountable governance.
Understanding Judicial Legislation and Separation of Powers
Judicial Legislation refers to the practice of the judiciary issuing directions to the executive branch to enact legislation or formulate policies to address gaps in existing laws or to protect fundamental rights. This is distinct from merely interpreting existing laws. The doctrine of Separation of Powers, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution (though not rigidly separated as in the US), aims to prevent concentration of power and ensure checks and balances. Article 50 of the Directive Principles of State Policy directs the state to separate the functions of the judiciary from the executive.
The Rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
PIL emerged in the 1980s as a means to provide access to justice to marginalized sections of society who were unable to approach the courts directly. It broadened the scope of locus standi, allowing anyone to petition on behalf of others. Several factors contributed to its rise:
- Judicial Activism: Judges like P.N. Bhagwati played a pivotal role in expanding the scope of PIL.
- Fundamental Rights Enforcement: PILs were frequently used to enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution (Articles 14, 19, 21, etc.).
- Executive Inaction: PILs often filled the void created by executive inaction or failure to address pressing social issues.
Justifying PILs Despite the Tension with Separation of Powers
While PILs requesting executive guidelines may appear to encroach upon the executive’s legislative function, they are often justified on several grounds:
- Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: When the executive fails to protect fundamental rights, the judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, has a duty to intervene. The Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, exemplifies this.
- Filling Legislative Vacuum: In the absence of specific legislation, the judiciary can provide interim guidelines to address urgent issues. For example, the Supreme Court’s directions regarding road safety in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987).
- Accountability and Good Governance: PILs promote accountability by forcing the executive to respond to public concerns and act in the public interest.
- Corrective Mechanism: PILs act as a corrective mechanism when the executive fails to perform its duties effectively or efficiently.
Limitations and Concerns
Despite their benefits, PILs are not without limitations:
- Judicial Overreach: Excessive judicial intervention can undermine the executive’s authority and disrupt the balance of powers.
- Abuse of PIL: PILs can be misused for personal gain, publicity stunts, or to settle political scores.
- Delay in Justice: A large number of frivolous PILs can clog the courts and delay the resolution of genuine cases.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged these concerns and has taken steps to curb the misuse of PILs, such as imposing costs on frivolous petitions.
Recent Trends
Recent years have seen a debate on the scope of judicial review and the extent to which the judiciary should intervene in policy matters. There's a growing emphasis on judicial restraint and allowing the executive to perform its functions without undue interference. However, the fundamental role of the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights remains paramount.
Conclusion
Judicial legislation through PILs, while seemingly challenging the doctrine of separation of powers, often serves as a vital mechanism for ensuring accountable governance and protecting fundamental rights in India. The judiciary’s role is not to supplant the executive or legislature, but to act as a check and balance, particularly when other institutions fail to fulfill their constitutional obligations. Striking a balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint is crucial to maintain the integrity of the constitutional framework and ensure effective 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.