Recent judicial interventions in cases like the Electoral Bond Scheme (2024) and COVID-19 management guidelines highlight the ongoing tension between judicial activism and constitutional separation of powers.

Judicial Legislation vs Separation of Powers

• Constitutional Design: Articles 50, 121, 122, 211, and 212 establish clear demarcation between legislative, executive, and judicial functions
• Judicial Overreach Concerns: Courts creating binding guidelines resembles legislative function, potentially violating the doctrine of separation of powers
• Constitutional Boundaries: Article 141 makes Supreme Court judgments binding, but doesn't authorize law-making functions
• Democratic Accountability: Elected representatives, not appointed judges, should ideally frame policies affecting public welfare
• Institutional Balance: Excessive judicial intervention may undermine democratic decision-making processes

Justification for PILs and Judicial Guidelines

• Constitutional Mandate: Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) and Article 226 empower courts to protect fundamental rights when other branches fail
• Legislative Vacuum: Courts fill gaps when legislature fails to enact necessary laws - Vishaka Guidelines (1997) addressed workplace harassment before legislative action
• Executive Inaction: PILs compel executive compliance with existing laws - Right to Food cases ensured implementation of welfare schemes
• Urgent Public Interest: Emergency situations require immediate judicial intervention - COVID-19 guidelines for oxygen supply and vaccination prioritization
• Access to Justice: PILs democratize justice delivery, with Supreme Court receiving over 35,000 cases annually, many through PIL route

Balancing Constitutional Principles

(SK Flowchart: PIL Process - Petition Filing → Court Scrutiny → Notice to Government → Guidelines/Directions → Implementation Monitoring)

• Complementary Role: Courts issue guidelines as interim measures until proper legislation emerges
• Constitutional Harmony: PIL guidelines uphold Article 21 (Right to Life) and Directive Principles when other branches remain inactive
• Structured Intervention: Courts increasingly adopt minimalist approach, providing broad directions rather than detailed prescriptions
• Democratic Reinforcement: PIL guidelines often compel democratic institutions to function effectively rather than replacing them
• Recent Reforms: Supreme Court's 2022 PIL guidelines emphasize genuine public interest over publicity-driven litigation

The proliferation of PILs reflects institutional necessity rather than judicial overreach, ensuring constitutional governance when democratic processes fail to protect citizens' rights and enforce accountability.