Executive-Judiciary Relation

The founding fathers while drafting the constitution didn’t envisage a water tight separation of executive and judiciary. Instead, the relationship was envisaged as more of a check and balance type. The Keshvananda Bharti case, and the resulting basic structure doctrine, is the epitome of the checks and balance concept. These check and balances are an essential element of constitutionalism.
With a gradual decline in political culture, arbitrary use of executive power is not unusual now-a-days. Laws get passed which are inherently unconstitutional (Sec 66-A of IT Act); arbitrary allocation of natural resources (Coal Block Allocation) has become a norm; election malpractices (RPA Act and disqualification); taxpayer’s money is used to further political interest (Government Advertisement issue) etc.
Against this backdrop, the judiciary, as the custodian of individual rights, has taken activist stances giving directives against arbitrary use of power. It has also, on many occasions, questioned executive on socio-economic condition of the marginalized. Rather than following the law by letter, it has followed the spirit of the constitution and the laws.
However, judiciary has more or less resisted this check and balance on itself under the garb of ‘independence of judiciary’. Any attempts of towards transparency in selections of judges, accountability of judges etc. have been thwarted by judiciary.
The constitution implicitly, rather than explicitly, provides their separation by separating the provision related to both in separate chapters. Independence of judiciary has been provisioned in the form of charged expenditure, tough removal etc.
Do you think the confrontation between the executive and the judiciary is a thing of past? How does the Indian constitution strive to forge harmony between these two organs of the government? Critically discuss. (200 Words)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top