Mains Focus – 21st March 2025
Question
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context, justify the filing of a large number of Public Interest petitions praying for issuing of guidelines to executive authorities. [15 Marks, GS Paper 2, 2020]
Answer
The doctrine of separation of powers is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, ensuring a functional demarcation among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Judicial legislation — where courts are perceived to create laws — is often seen as a violation of this doctrine. However, the Indian judiciary has, over the years, resorted to issuing guidelines or directions in the absence of clear laws or executive action, especially in response to Public Interest Litigations (PILs).
PILs serve as a mechanism for addressing gaps in governance and protecting fundamental rights. The frequent filing of PILs seeking judicial guidelines is justified on several grounds:
- Executive Inaction or Legislative Vacuum: In many instances, the Legislature or Executive has failed to act on urgent matters affecting public welfare. For example, in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment at workplaces due to the absence of a legislative framework.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Judiciary, under Article 32 and 226, is duty-bound to enforce fundamental rights. PILs enable citizens to seek redressal where state machinery is either non-functional or complicit.
- Checks and Balances: Judicial interventions through PILs uphold the system of checks and balances. They prevent the arbitrary use of power and ensure accountability.
- Temporary Measures: Guidelines issued are often intended as interim directions until a law is enacted, reflecting judicial restraint rather than overreach.
While excessive judicial activism may raise concerns, PILs often emerge from a need to fill institutional voids. Hence, the judiciary’s role in such cases complements, rather than contradicts, the doctrine of separation of powers by ensuring governance remains responsive and rights-centric.
.png)
