Answer: 

Introduction:

The doctrine of separation of powers, as envisaged in the Indian Constitution, promotes the division of governmental responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. Judicial legislation, also known as judicial activism, occurs when the judiciary interprets the law or creates new legal principles, often encroaching upon the domain of the executive or legislature.

Body:

• Need for judicial intervention: The Indian judicial system has witnessed a large number of PILs, as citizens seek to address pressing social issues, protect fundamental rights, and hold the executive accountable. In many cases, the executive and legislative branches have been unable or unwilling to tackle these issues effectively. As a result, the judiciary has stepped in to bridge the gap and protect the rights of citizens.
• A specific example of judicial intervention is the Supreme Court’s decision in the Vishaka case (1997), where the court laid down guidelines to address sexual harassment in the workplace.
• Evolution of PIL in India: PIL emerged as a powerful tool in the 1980s to provide access to justice to marginalized and disadvantaged sections of society. The judiciary, led by proactive judges, relaxed the rules of locus standi and allowed any individual or organization to file a case on behalf of those who could not approach the court themselves.
• A notable example of the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984). In this case, the Supreme Court relaxed the rules of locus standi and allowed an NGO to file a case on behalf of bonded laborers, who were unable to approach the court themselves.
• Judicial guidelines and directives: In various PILs, the judiciary has issued guidelines and directives to the executive, aiming to address issues such as environmental protection, human rights, and corruption. These guidelines, while encroaching upon the executive’s domain, have often proven necessary to address policy paralysis, bureaucratic inefficiency, or corruption.
• The Supreme Court’s directives in the MC Mehta v. Union of India case (1986) are a prominent example of judicial guidelines to address environmental protection.
• Balancing act: Although judicial legislation can be seen as a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, the Indian Constitution does not strictly adhere to this doctrine. Instead, it provides for a system of checks and balances, where the judiciary can review and interpret the actions of the executive and legislature. This flexible approach has allowed the judiciary to intervene in cases where other branches have failed to act responsibly or efficiently.
• A significant example of the judiciary’s balancing act is the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Common Cause v. Union of India case (2017). The court directed the government to introduce specific measures to ensure transparency and accountability in political funding, addressing the issue of corruption. While encroaching upon the executive’s domain, this decision aimed to uphold the principles of integrity and fairness in the electoral process.

Conclusion:

While judicial legislation can be seen as antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers, the filing of numerous PILs praying for guidelines to be issued to executive authorities is justified in the context of India’s unique challenges. The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in upholding the rights of citizens, addressing pressing social issues, and ensuring accountability from the executive and legislative branches. This intervention, while pushing the boundaries of the separation of powers, has been necessary to maintain a balance and protect the public interest in many cases.