Judiciary Activism vs. Executive Power
In any constitutional democracy, the balance of power among the organs of the state— legislature, executive, and judiciary—is sacrosanct. Each is designed to operate within its own domain while ensuring checks and balances. However, in India, the relationship between the judiciary and the executive has often oscillated between cautious respect and open conflict. The growing trend of judicial activism has intensified this friction, raising crucial questions: Is the judiciary overstepping its limits? Or is it filling the vacuum left by an indifferent or overreaching executive?
Judicial activism, in its essence, is the proactive role played by the judiciary to protect the rights of citizens and uphold constitutional values, often through the interpretation of laws and issuance of directives in the absence of legislation or executive action. While it is not a derogatory term per se, it becomes controversial when courts are perceived to intrude into executive functions or policy-making.
Proponents of judicial activism argue that in a country like India, where corruption, inefficiency, and political expediency often hamper executive functioning, the judiciary is the last hope for justice. Landmark judgments such as Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and MC Mehta v. Union of India are celebrated examples of the judiciary stepping in where the executive failed to act. The judiciary, through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), has addressed issues ranging from environmental degradation to custodial violence, proving itself to be an agent of social change.
However, critics argue that this activism often borders on overreach. For instance, when courts start dictating policies—such as banning diesel vehicles, monitoring school curriculum, or managing cricket boards—they risk undermining democratic accountability. The executive, unlike the judiciary, is an elected body and hence directly answerable to the people. When courts assume executive powers without the corresponding accountability, it raises concerns about the erosion of the separation of powers.
The tension is also institutional. Executive power, vested in elected governments, derives its legitimacy from the people's mandate. The judiciary, on the other hand, enjoys the trust of the people due to its independence and constitutional guardianship. When these institutions clash—such as in the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case, where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment passed by Parliament—it is not merely a legal debate but a reflection of deeper institutional dissonance.
The executive, at times, views judicial intervention as a challenge to its authority. This is particularly evident in politically sensitive cases, where court decisions are perceived as encroachments on policy matters. The judiciary, however, justifies its role as a necessary intervention in the face of executive inaction or constitutional violation. The recent standoff over the delay in judicial appointments by the executive further illustrates this power struggle. What is needed is not a turf war but a nuanced understanding of constitutional roles. Judicial activism must be restrained by judicial discipline. The executive, on its part, must respect the independence of the judiciary and act in good faith. Both institutions must operate in a spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation. The goal is not to assert dominance, but to ensure justice, governance, and constitutional integrity.
Ultimately, the Constitution is not a battleground but a blueprint for governance. Judicial activism and executive power are not mutually exclusive; they are co-guardians of democracy. Their synergy, not conflict, will determine the strength of India's constitutional ethos.
