Roadmap for Answer Writing

1. Introduction

• Define the Principle of Separation of Powers: Briefly explain the doctrine of separation of powers, which ensures the independence of the three branches of government: the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Mention how the Indian Constitution reflects this principle through provisions like Articles 122, 121, 212, etc.
• State the Problem: Highlight how judicial activism in India, despite its benefits, has often led to the blurring of lines between the Judiciary and the Legislature, which can undermine the separation of powers.

Relevant facts:

• Articles 122 and 212: Prohibit courts from inquiring into legislative proceedings.
• Articles 121 and 211: Prevent discussions in Parliament about the conduct of judges, except during impeachment.

2. Judicial Activism: Meaning and Evolution

• Define Judicial Activism: Explain that judicial activism refers to instances where the judiciary takes an assertive role in interpreting laws and making decisions that may encroach on the legislative or executive functions, often in the name of protecting fundamental rights or the Constitution.
• Brief Overview of Judicial Activism in India: Trace the development of judicial activism in India and how the courts have played an active role in shaping public policy and rights-based jurisprudence.

Relevant facts:

• Public Interest Litigations (PILs): Courts accepting PILs to address public grievances, leading to judicial intervention in areas usually managed by the legislature.
• The Supreme Court’s growing involvement in social issues, environmental protection, human rights, etc., through judicial orders.

3. Instances of Judicial Activism Undermining Separation of Powers

• Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and Writ Petitions: Discuss how PILs have allowed the judiciary to step into legislative functions, such as in the case of Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), where the court laid down guidelines on sexual harassment in the absence of a law passed by Parliament.Relevant fact:
  • In Vishaka & Others vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court framed guidelines on sexual harassment at workplaces, directing Parliament to pass a law (this encroached on the legislative function).
• Judicial Review of Legislative Actions: Highlight how judicial review has led to the courts overturning laws or limiting the powers of Parliament, such as in the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) case, which introduced the ‘basic structure doctrine,’ limiting the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.Relevant facts:
  • Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): The Court propounded the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, asserting that certain features of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament.
  • National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015): The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC, which was aimed at reforming the judicial appointment process, stating that the judiciary must retain its primacy in such matters.
• Judicial Intervention in Legislative Procedures: Discuss instances where the judiciary has interfered with the functioning of the legislature, such as in the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly case, where the Supreme Court ordered the Assembly to conduct a motion of confidence and adhere to specific procedures.Relevant fact:
  • Jharkhand Legislative Assembly Case (2016): The Supreme Court intervened in legislative procedures by ordering the Speaker to conduct a confidence motion and limit discussion to the prescribed agenda.

4. Pros and Cons of Judicial Activism

• Pros: Discuss the positive aspects of judicial activism, such as promoting social justice, safeguarding fundamental rights, and ensuring that the other branches of government do not neglect their duties.
• Cons: Criticize how judicial activism can lead to judicial overreach, undermining the doctrine of separation of powers by allowing the judiciary to assume legislative or executive roles. It also weakens the accountability of the legislature.

5. Conclusion

• Balance Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach: Emphasize the thin line between judicial activism (which is often necessary to ensure justice and uphold rights) and judicial overreach (which can undermine the balance of power between the legislature and judiciary).
• Recommendation: Conclude with a note on the need for a careful and restrained approach to judicial intervention in legislative matters to preserve the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Relevant Facts for Use in Answer:

1. Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court issued guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of a law passed by Parliament, a clear case of judicial activism encroaching on the legislative domain.
2. Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): The Court’s verdict on the “basic structure” doctrine limited the power of Parliament to amend certain provisions of the Constitution, showing judicial interference in legislative power.
3. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case (2015): The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, challenging the constitutional amendment to reform judicial appointments, which raised concerns about judicial overreach.
4. Jharkhand Legislative Assembly Case (2016): The Supreme Court intervened in legislative proceedings, ordering the Speaker of the Assembly to conduct a confidence motion, thus entering the domain of legislative procedures.
5. Public Interest Litigations (PILs): In cases like Bhopal Gas Tragedy and Environmental Pollution cases, the judiciary has intervened in areas of public policy that traditionally belong to the legislature.

By following this roadmap, you will be able to write a well-structured answer that covers the key aspects of judicial activism, its impact on the separation of powers, and its relevance in the Indian context.