Que. Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.
न्यायिक विधायन, भारतीय संविधान में परिकल्पित शक्ति पृथक्करण सिद्धान्त का प्रतिपक्षी है। इस संदर्भ में कार्यपालक अधिकरणों को दिशा-निर्देश देने की प्रार्थना करने सम्बन्धी, बड़ी संख्या में दायर होने वाली, लोक हित याचिकाओं का न्याय औचित्य सिद्ध कीजिए।
Structure of the Answer
(i) Introduction: Define the concept of “judicial legislation” and its potential clash with the “separation of powers” principle in India.
(ii) Main Body: Examine the rationale for filing “public interest petitions” seeking “judicial guidelines” for the executive and how it impacts constitutional balance.
(iii) Conclusion: Summarize the role of judicial intervention as a necessary safeguard, emphasizing respect for the doctrine of “separation of powers.”
Introduction
“Judicial legislation” involves the judiciary taking proactive roles typically reserved for the legislature or executive, potentially challenging India’s “separation of powers.” Yet, growing “public interest petitions” reflect societal reliance on judiciary as a corrective force.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Judicial Role
The doctrine of “separation of powers” limits each branch’s influence, ensuring a balanced and accountable governance structure. However, public faith in judicial rectitude increasingly pushes the judiciary into an activist role.
(i) Safeguarding Checks and Balances: “Separation of powers” prevents concentration of power, fostering a system where each branch remains in check.
(ii) Judicial Independence as a Pillar: Judiciary’s impartiality enables it to act as a bulwark against authoritarianism, providing citizens a forum for recourse.
(iii) Curbing Executive Overreach: Judicial intervention often addresses executive transgressions, restoring rule of law and protecting individual rights.
(iv) Addressing Legislative Gaps: Courts fill critical policy voids when legislative inaction or ambiguity affects citizens’ rights, bolstering governance.
(v) Public Confidence in Judiciary: Trust in judiciary often leads the public to pursue redress through the courts, underscoring the judiciary’s moral authority.
Rise of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and Judicial Guidelines
“Public Interest Litigations” (PILs) serve as a democratic instrument enabling citizens to hold the executive accountable. These petitions, often seeking “judicial guidelines,” reflect citizens’ trust in the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability.
(i) Ensuring Democratic Accountability: PILs act as a mechanism for transparency, empowering judiciary to address executive inefficiencies.
(ii) Advocating for Social Justice: PILs enable marginalized communities to seek “judicial support,” addressing inequalities and promoting inclusion.
(iii) Quick Redressal of Urgent Issues: PILs allow immediate intervention in pressing issues, overcoming delays associated with legislative processes.
(iv) Protecting Fundamental Rights: Judiciary offers remedies to protect rights when executive actions fall short, acting as a rights custodian.
(v) Filling Legislative and Policy Gaps: In the absence of clear legislative direction, judicial guidelines establish necessary frameworks, ensuring social welfare.
Balancing Judicial Intervention with Constitutional Boundaries
Excessive judicial interference risks disrupting democratic processes. Thus, judicial activism should aim to reinforce, not replace, executive and legislative functions, preserving the balance envisioned by the Constitution.
(i) Respect for Legislative Authority: Deference to legislature upholds democratic representation, ensuring that judiciary complements rather than dominates governance.
(ii) Avoiding Policy-Making Role: Judicial guidelines should address administrative lapses without creating policy, which is a legislative domain.
(iii) Preserving Constitutional Integrity: Judicial activism should operate within “constitutional boundaries,” avoiding overreach while supporting governance.
(iv) Reinforcing Public Interest: Judiciary’s protective role should not displace executive responsibility, instead reinforcing governance.
(v) Ensuring Proportionate Intervention: Judicial involvement should remain issue-specific, avoiding systemic encroachment on executive functions.
Conclusion
While judicial guidelines address governance shortcomings, restrained activism respects “separation of powers.” Judicial intervention remains essential to uphold constitutional values, yet must balance its protective role without superseding democratic governance structures.
