Article
Separation of Powers in the Age of Judicial Activism: A Critical Examination
The doctrine of separation of powers constitutes a foundational principle of constitutional governance, ensuring the distribution of authority among the legislature, executive, and judiciary to prevent the concentration of power. In the Indian context, this doctrine operates in a flexible form, shaped by constitutional design and judicial interpretation. Over the past few decades, the rise of judicial activism has significantly influenced this balance, with courts increasingly intervening in matters traditionally reserved for the other branches of government. This paper critically examines the evolving relationship between separation of powers and judicial activism, with a particular focus on the Indian constitutional framework. Adopting a qualitative and doctrinal research methodology, the study analyses constitutional provisions, landmark judicial decisions, and scholarly literature to assess whether judicial activism strengthens democratic governance or leads to institutional overreach. Key cases, including Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case (2015), are examined to illustrate the judiciary’s expanding role in law-making and policy intervention. The findings suggest that judicial activism has played a crucial role in safeguarding fundamental rights, addressing legislative and executive inaction, and advancing social justice. However, it also raises concerns regarding democratic legitimacy and the potential erosion of institutional boundaries. The paper argues for a calibrated approach that preserves judicial independence while maintaining respect for the functional domain of other branches. It contributes to contemporary constitutional discourse by offering a nuanced evaluation of judicial activism in the age of evolving governance dynamics.