Separation of powers

Model Answer

Introduction

The doctrine of separation of powers, as envisaged in the Indian Constitution, promotes the division of governmental responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. Judicial legislation, also known as judicial activism, occurs when the judiciary interprets the law or creates new legal principles, often encroaching upon the domain of the executive or legislature.

Need for Judicial Intervention

The Indian judicial system has witnessed a large number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) as citizens seek to address pressing social issues, protect fundamental rights, and hold the executive accountable. In many cases, the executive and legislative branches have been unable or unwilling to tackle these issues effectively. As a result, the judiciary has stepped in to bridge the gap and protect the rights of citizens. A specific example of judicial intervention is the Supreme Court’s decision in the Vishaka case (1997), where the court laid down guidelines to address sexual harassment in the workplace.

Evolution of PIL in India

PIL emerged as a powerful tool in the 1980s to provide access to justice to marginalized and disadvantaged sections of society. The judiciary, led by proactive judges, relaxed the rules of locus standi and allowed any individual or organization to file a case on behalf of those who could not approach the court themselves. A notable example is the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), where the Supreme Court allowed an NGO to file a case on behalf of bonded laborers.

Judicial Guidelines and Directives

In various PILs, the judiciary has issued guidelines and directives to the executive, aiming to address issues such as environmental protection, human rights, and corruption. These guidelines, while encroaching upon the executive’s domain, have often proven necessary to address policy paralysis, bureaucratic inefficiency, or corruption. The Supreme Court’s directives in the MC Mehta v. Union of India case (1986) are a prominent example of judicial guidelines to address environmental protection.

Balancing Act

Although judicial legislation can be seen as a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, the Indian Constitution provides for a system of checks and balances, allowing the judiciary to review and interpret the actions of the executive and legislature. A significant example is the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Common Cause v. Union of India case (2017), where the court directed the government to introduce measures for transparency in political funding, addressing corruption while encroaching upon the executive’s domain.

Conclusion

While judicial legislation can be seen as antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers, the filing of numerous PILs praying for guidelines to be issued to executive authorities is justified in the context of India’s unique challenges. The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in upholding the rights of citizens, addressing pressing social issues, and ensuring accountability from the executive and legislative branches. This intervention, while pushing the boundaries of the separation of powers, has been necessary to maintain a balance and protect the public interest in many cases.

Model Answer

Introduction

The assertion that “the most significant achievement of modern law in India is the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court” underscores the pivotal role the judiciary plays in intertwining environmental concerns with constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has effectively interpreted the Constitution to affirm the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental right, thereby enhancing legal protections for the environment.

Significant Case Laws

C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

In the Oleum Gas Leak Case, the Supreme Court expanded Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, to include the right to a pollution-free environment. The Court introduced the principle of absolute liability, holding industries accountable for harm caused by hazardous activities, regardless of their intent or negligence. This case set a precedent for strict liability in environmental issues.

C. Mehta v. Union of India (1997)

In the Taj Mahal Preservation Case, the Court applied the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle, ordering the closure of polluting industries near the monument. This judgment emphasized sustainable development and the protection of cultural heritage, reinforcing the idea that environmental degradation must be addressed proactively.

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996)

This case marked the Supreme Court’s formal recognition of the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle as essential components of Indian environmental law. These principles guide authorities in taking preventive actions and ensure that polluters are responsible for the costs of pollution remediation.

N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997)

In this landmark judgment regarding forest conservation, the Court expanded Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, emphasizing the duty of the state and citizens to preserve the environment. This case led to the establishment of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to oversee forest conservation issues, reinforcing the state’s responsibilities.

Conclusion

The aforementioned cases illustrate the Supreme Court’s critical role in constitutionalizing environmental issues in India. Through innovative interpretations of the Constitution, the Court has broadened the scope of fundamental rights, integrated international environmental principles, and reinforced the state’s obligation to protect the environment for present and future generations. This judicial activism marks a significant achievement in modern Indian law.