The doctrine of ‘Separation of Power’ as enshrined in the Constitution of India guides about the three organs of the Government , viz; the executive, the legislature and the judiciary which must not interfere in each other’s functions as they are having separate functions and powers. However, there is a system of ”checks and balances” denoting that one organ did not become too powerful and that no organ of the Government abused its own power. Having said that, there could be varied opinions about whether there was too much of interference of judiciary in both the executive and even in legislature’s functioning . There could , again, be varied opinions about whether too much of judicial activism and intervention was taking place in India or really so much of intervention was necessary to put the executive on responsive and responsible path vis-a-vis for the public interest. Equally, there could be an appraisal of judicial intervention too, at times being only in respect of select issues even though there could be more important issues needing the same intervention. There could be also varied opinions about the judiciary not taking suo-motu cognizance of many critical and important issues where interpretation of the Constitution and articulating of judicial views were absolutely necessary and that also quite timely. However, if such judicial intervention was labelled as targeting or embarrassing or even stepping into the shoes of the executive , that would constitute casting aspersions on the judiciary and such a thinking needed not to be nursed as ultimately that was not good for the country’s democratic set-up. On these lines, the CJI has recently made his observations about the issue which merited giving a thought thereto. However, who would appraise whether like the executive being nudged by the judicial intervention , the judiciary perhaps at times also needed a nudge . The system, however, does not allow it. Should therefore, ‘separation of Power’ be termed as slightly qualified
Follow our WhatsApp channel