“Judicial activism has enhanced the accountability of the executive but has also raised concerns over separation of powers.” Discuss.

Introduction:

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in upholding constitutional values, particularly when other organs of government fail to act. In India, it has evolved as a mechanism for ensuring executive accountability and citizen-centric governance.

Body:

1. Contribution to Accountability:

• Through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), courts have ensured executive responsibility on issues such as environment, gender justice, and corruption.
  
  • Example: Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1997) led to institutionalising CBI autonomy.
    
• The judiciary has compelled the administration to act in areas like Right to Food, clean air, and police reforms, reinforcing Good Governance principles.

2. Emerging Concerns:

• Judicial Overreach: In cases like policy bans or appointments, courts have encroached upon the executive’s domain, diluting separation of powers.
• Administrative Paralysis: Fear of judicial scrutiny sometimes discourages bold policy decisions.
• Lack of Institutional Expertise: Courts are not always equipped to decide on complex administrative or economic policy matters.

Conclusion:

While judicial activism strengthens democratic accountability, it must operate within constitutional limits. The balance lies in judicial restraint combined with executive responsiveness, ensuring that governance remains participatory yet institutionally disciplined—true to Woodrow Wilson’s spirit of administrative balance.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation

Public Administration Optional Exam Preparation