Q.1. Explain the concept of Judicial Activism and evaluate its impact on the relationship of Executive and Judiciary in India.

Judicial Activism is a concept where the judiciary takes an active role in promoting justice, beyond just interpreting the law. It originated in the US in 1947 and has been seen in India since the Emergency days. In India, it often involves the judiciary overstepping into the territories of the executive, which can lead to tensions between these two branches of government.

The impact of judicial activism on the relationship between the Executive and Judiciary in India can be significant:

• Checks and Balances: Judicial activism serves as a check on the Executive, ensuring that its actions are constitutional. This can sometimes lead to friction when the judiciary overturns executive decisions or policies.
• Upholding Rights: It has been instrumental in upholding the rights of citizens and preserving the constitutional and legal system of the country.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The concept of PIL, closely associated with judicial activism, allows the court to address the concerns of the public, even if there is no direct aggrieved party.

However, this activism can sometimes be seen as judicial overreach, where the judiciary is perceived to be encroaching upon the functions of the executive or legislative branches. This can strain the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, especially if the latter views the former’s actions as an intrusion into its domain of policy-making.

The relationship between the Executive and Judiciary is complex:

• Separation of Powers: While there is a separation of powers, the Indian system does not follow it as rigidly as some other democracies. The judiciary has the power to strike down unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature, which indirectly affects the executive’s ability to implement its policies.
• Interconnected Roles: The executive formulates and implements policies, while the judiciary ensures these policies and actions comply with the Constitution and the rule of law. This interconnectedness is essential for upholding democracy and protecting citizens’ rights.

In conclusion, judicial activism plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power in India, but it can also lead to conflicts with the executive when the judiciary is perceived to be overstepping its bounds. The relationship between these two branches is maintained through a system of checks and balances, with each having distinct but interconnected roles in the governance of the country.