Q.Do you think that judicial activism can lead to a conflict between the judiciary and the executive? Why?

Judicial activism pushes courts into administrative territory that the separation of powers assigns to the executive. …

The Indian Constitution rests on a principle of limited separation of powers with checks and balances: broadly, Parliament makes laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary settles disputes and checks whether laws conform to the Constitution. Judicial activism, especially through PIL, has repeatedly pushed the judiciary beyond that narrow role — the courts have directed the CBI to investigate politicians and bureaucrats in cases like the hawala case and the Narasimha Rao case, ordered environmental measures (such as the CNG mandate for Delhi's buses), and pressed for electoral reforms such as requiring candidates to disclose their assets.

Each of these is, strictly speaking, an administrative or policy matter that belongs to the executive under the ordinary division of powers — reducing pollution, investigating corruption, and reforming elections are not, in the chapter's own words, "exactly the duty of the Judiciary." When the Court steps in anyway, especially by giving direct orders or timelines to executive agencies, it can be read by the executive as an intrusion into territory the Constitution assigns to it — and the executive can, in turn, resist, delay, or criticise the Court's directions, generating friction rather than cooperation. …