Any system is said to be in equilibrium when it's sub systems are performing as expected by the conscience of the parent system. A state hence would be balanced if the organs- legislative, executive and the judiciary, perform as per the state's conscience. But somehow that has not been yet observed when we look into various states in general and Indian State in particular.
Just after independence, we witnessed an era of dominance of the legislative. The strong leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru as our Prime Minister(1947-64) and his statesmanship,his ability to hold all the parliamentarians by a strong bond and of course the visionary steering, all made the legislative omnipotent.Neither the executive not the judiciary ever questioned the methods of the legislative. Jawaharlal Nehru maintained the sanctity of the parliament and gave equal opportunities of all.
Then came the era of the executive.When Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister(1966-75), she dominated the functioning of the parliament and thus the executive gained superiority over the legislative.The dormant secretariat of the Prime Minister i.e the PMO, gained importance. Under the control of P.N.Haksar, the PMO started issuing writs to the ministries and departments. Something which was new for Indian polity.
Post 1977, the era of one-party dominance came crashing down and Congress went out of power for the first time since independence. Coalition politics was slowly on the rise which was bound to make the legislative weak. And in the absence of strong leaders like Nehru, the executive too was bound to collapse. This was the time when the judiciary started attaining power. It fought many battles to widen it's ambit and even though the legislative tried to contain it, but that was all in vain.
Then came a paradigm shift with the concept of PIL(Public Interest Litigation). Article 32 of Indian constitution enables us to directly move to Supreme court in case of violation of any Fundamental Right. But then majority of Indian population had no idea about these provisions and this holds true even today. So the judiciary provided that now anyone can approach the courts on behalf of the victims.This was called public interest litigation.And this was the beginning of judicial activism which resulted from malfunctioning of the legislative and the executive. Also, the courts started taking suo moto cognizance of ill practices and wrong doings and issuing orders to rectify them. The overtake of the work of the executive, is something beyond the purview of legitimate judicial activism and is considered as judicial over-reach.
Judicial activism is a welcome phenomenon only in the short run.If it is carried out for long, it may destroy the concept of separation of power and can destroy the checks that provide the balance among the three organs.Hence the judiciary must employ self-restrain and evolve a code of ethics for judges while indulging in judicial activism and shall only use it as a last resort.
Just after independence, we witnessed an era of dominance of the legislative. The strong leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru as our Prime Minister(1947-64) and his statesmanship,his ability to hold all the parliamentarians by a strong bond and of course the visionary steering, all made the legislative omnipotent.Neither the executive not the judiciary ever questioned the methods of the legislative. Jawaharlal Nehru maintained the sanctity of the parliament and gave equal opportunities of all.
Then came the era of the executive.When Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister(1966-75), she dominated the functioning of the parliament and thus the executive gained superiority over the legislative.The dormant secretariat of the Prime Minister i.e the PMO, gained importance. Under the control of P.N.Haksar, the PMO started issuing writs to the ministries and departments. Something which was new for Indian polity.
Post 1977, the era of one-party dominance came crashing down and Congress went out of power for the first time since independence. Coalition politics was slowly on the rise which was bound to make the legislative weak. And in the absence of strong leaders like Nehru, the executive too was bound to collapse. This was the time when the judiciary started attaining power. It fought many battles to widen it's ambit and even though the legislative tried to contain it, but that was all in vain.
Then came a paradigm shift with the concept of PIL(Public Interest Litigation). Article 32 of Indian constitution enables us to directly move to Supreme court in case of violation of any Fundamental Right. But then majority of Indian population had no idea about these provisions and this holds true even today. So the judiciary provided that now anyone can approach the courts on behalf of the victims.This was called public interest litigation.And this was the beginning of judicial activism which resulted from malfunctioning of the legislative and the executive. Also, the courts started taking suo moto cognizance of ill practices and wrong doings and issuing orders to rectify them. The overtake of the work of the executive, is something beyond the purview of legitimate judicial activism and is considered as judicial over-reach.
Judicial activism is a welcome phenomenon only in the short run.If it is carried out for long, it may destroy the concept of separation of power and can destroy the checks that provide the balance among the three organs.Hence the judiciary must employ self-restrain and evolve a code of ethics for judges while indulging in judicial activism and shall only use it as a last resort.
