Judicial activism is an area which has ,of late, generated a lot of controversy. The political parties and their leaders are strongly opposed to the role of the judiciary into areas which they consider to be their sole preserve. They interpret it as an encroachment by the courts. Even the speaker of the last Lok Sabha spoke stridently against judicial activism. Judicial activism falls into the category of public litigation. It is interesting to note that however bitter the opposition might be among the political leaders, the mood of the general people is one of acceptance.

The doctrine of segregation of powers in a democratic dispensation amongst its different organs is the core issue centring around this controversy. Our founding fathers of the Constitutions were alive to the dangers of conflicts among these agencies and thus far-sighted enough to clearly demarcate the areas of function for these organs. For the successful and effective functioning of a democratic system of governance, each of the organs has to uphold the the provisions of the Constitution by observing them true to their letter and spirit. And a plain reading of the provisions of this supreme would make it crystal clear that it tried to strike a fine balance between powers and duties for all these organs.

There are many a situation since Independence that the courts of India especially the Supreme Court came to the rescue of the common people from patently unjust and unconstitutional acts of the executive. The criticism mainly comes from the political class of certain decisions or judgements of the court which thwart their dark designs. However there are instances too when the some decisions of the court could not carry convictions with them. The common people found those decisions to difficult to accept. Being the principal interpreter of the Constitutional provisions the court should not stretching the meanings too far to upset the fine balance that exist between the different organs.