Although upholding the spirit of the Constitution through judicial activism is noble in its intent, in practice it runs the risk of undermining the delicate balance of power that the Constitution sought to achieve. Critically examine.

Upholding spirit of constitution through judicial activism is noble: Judicial activism is good way of enhancing constitutional spirit as: (1) It allows for filling the legislative gaps (2) Judges with knowledge of laws can give better insights (3) It enhances accountability and efficiency of executive in sustaining its duties towards public (4) It enhances public trust in constitution as public see judges as one who will save them from apathy and tyranny of executive (5) Concepts like Public Interest Litigation PIL which emerged out of judicial activism has allowed of judicial activism to persons who were no aware of it or could not access it. Despite these benefits, judicial activism is dangerous as it poses risk to balance of power: Risk to balance of power: (1) Judiciary encroaches administration then administration too will encroach judiciary (2) Judicial activism is becoming judicial adventurism (3) Judges are not elected by people thus judicial activism undermines democracy itself (4) Judges mogli learn that it's easier said than done, and there are practical problems on ground which judges might not realise (5) There is a danger that judicial activism might corner executive and thus judiciary might lose its credibility (6) Supreme court itself has called for judicial restraint. Although, India donot followed a strict separation of power, a bare minimum is necessary for smooth functioning of all the organs of state.

Continuation: (2) Judiciary need to look after its own functioning (with larger pending cases) (6) Judicial activism is becoming judicial adventurism (7) Judges are not elected by people thus judicial activism undermines democracy itself (8) Judges mogli learn that it's easier said than done, and there are practical problems on ground which judges might not realise (9) There is a danger that judicial activism might corner executive and thus judiciary might lose its credibility (10) Supreme court itself has called for Judicial restraint. Although, India donot followed a strict separation of power, a bare minimum is necessary for smooth functioning of all the organs of state.

Additional points on the delicate balance of power and judicial activism issues.

Continuation of analysis on judicial activism and separation of powers.

Conclusion paragraph stating that although India does not follow strict separation of power, a bare minimum is necessary for smooth functioning of all organs of state and functioning with a more balanced approach.

— BACHHAV KARTIK RAVINDRA · AIR 177