ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Confrontation, Complicity, or Selectivity?

Isolated acts of judicial activism do not threaten the stability of the troika that runs the Indian state.

Behind the present brouhaha over the issue of judicial activism, what is often lost sight of is the politics of a turfwar among members of a troika who are also partners in running the Indian state. Although the Constitution mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive and makes parliamentary proceedings immune from court jurisdiction, experts from all the three wings agree that instead of any rigid distribution of powers, a system of checks and balances should operate.

Within this delicate system, the interests of the judiciary, the executive and the legislature sometimes converge, as well as clash. The judiciary, in particular, is passing through a defining moment in India today. After having gone through the shameful phase of total capitulation to the executive during the Indira Gandhi regime, the judiciary had been attempting, since the lifting of the Emergency, to reinvent its role as an independent arbiter. This was done through steps like institutionalising the concept of public interest litigation (PIL) and suo motu intervention that gave relief to some sections of the poor and victims of executive inaction.

Dear Reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Back to Top