Constitutional Tensions And The Quest For Social Democracy In India

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Constitutional & Human Rights

Published: 2026-08-23T18:55:50.684199+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:11:39.518+00:00

CONSTITUTIONAL TENSIONS AND THE QUEST FOR

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

Yash Deokate, Yashwantrao Chavan Law College, Pune Affiliated to Savitribai Phule Pune University, Maharashtra.

ABSTRACT

This article explores the evolving relationship between the executive and judiciary in India, with a particular focus on the tensions that arise from their respective roles in policy formulation and implementation. The conflict between the two branches of government often manifests in instances where policies designed to fulfil welfare objectives clash with constitutional values, leading to judicial interventions and political manoeuvring. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining a balance of power between these branches to preserve democracy and ensure that policies are both effective and responsive to the needs of society. Keywords: Executive, Judiciary, Welfare, Policy formulation, Constitutional values, Balance of power.

INTRODUCTION

Modern Day Government are in haste when it comes to policy formulations. Irrespective of the type of government that exists in a Nation-State, the authorities in power think it to be prudent to form a public policy to cater to the needs of its people, sometimes such policies are often irrelevant to the demands of people. The major intent of a policy is to define problems, lay down the government’s intent analyzed on the conclusions drawn from issues operating in society, and outline the guiding principles to achieve it and includes specific actions to address the problem. In most democracies, sweeping transformative government policies often come in conflict with the literal stated goals of written constitutions protecting individual rights, many times such policies face backlashes, and required to be taken aback due to the constitutional mandate.

But Governments firm on their welfare intent push forward such policies through various political tactics. The Indian experience of such Legislative and Policy reforms that have come in conflict with stated Indian Constitutional Values which were understood differently by the legislature and interpreted differently by the Judiciary, brings to light growing tussle between Judiciary and Executive. Evolving in such dynamics, the Indian Parliament have manoeuvred the Constitution to fulfil its policy aspirations and in time send a message to judiciary about its intent of a Welfare State and in response judiciary have also resorted to such manoeuvres and the conflict went on.

EXECUTIVE - JUDICIARY TUSSLES AND ITS REUPRCUSSIONS

When in 2014, the Parliament enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act to replace the collegium system, Supreme court declared the act to be unconstitutional, declaring that the judiciary cannot risk being caught in a “web of indebtedness” towards the government. NJAC sought to give politicians and civil society a final says in the appointment of judges to the highest courts.1 Years later, the executive consistently delayed the approval to recommendations of judicial appointments sent by Supreme Court Collegium, which reflected 1https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Supreme-Court-verdict-on-NJAC-and-Collegiumsystem/article60384480.ece

the widening of tussle between the executive and judiciary In August 2019, the government revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in December 2023, affirming the constitutionality of the revocation and the subsequent reorganization of the region into union territories. 2 In July 2023, the Supreme Court intervened in response to violence in Manipur, expressing concern over the state's handling of investigations and law enforcement. The Court formed a committee to oversee relief and rehabilitation efforts, emphasizing the judiciary's role in addressing executive shortcomings. 3 In February 2023, the government cleared the appointment of five Supreme Court judges recommended by the Collegium. This move was seen as a positive step towards resolving tensions between the executive and judiciary regarding judicial appointments.

OPINION OF JURISTS

Granville Austin in his magnum opus The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (1966)4 reflected on this issue in depth and examines the relationship between the executive and judiciary in India, emphasizing the importance of judicial independence for the proper functioning of democracy. He argues that while the Constitution establishes a balance of power, the executive has historically been positioned to dominate both the judiciary and legislature. Austin stresses that judicial review is essential to check executive overreach, particularly in safeguarding fundamental rights. He is critical of efforts, like the 42nd Amendment, that sought to curtail judicial power and undermine the judiciary’s autonomy Austin points out the risks of executive interference in judicial appointments, which could compromise the impartiality of the courts.

He underscores the importance of maintaining the separation of powers to preserve democracy. Despite challenges, Austin argues that the judiciary must act as an effective check on executive power and that the independence of the judiciary has been threatened by political pressures. Austin’s work remains foundational in understanding the tensions between the

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revocation_of_the_special_status_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023%E2%80%932025_Manipur_violence

4 The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (1966)

executive and judiciary in India. Though, there it be a natural tendency in branches of government to exert an amount of influence over the other. It’s is important to note that while judiciary and executive asserting such they have their own on arguments with regard to overreach into others domain. In time these tussles operating on the constitutional landscape seems critical, but they have a devastating impact on the policy implementation making the marginalised suffer in the paradigm world of constitutional crisis. There have been many such instances where the constructive criticism on judiciary on executive has resulted in some excellent policies. For example, Judicial activism in the form of petitions and court directions has played a crucial role in ensuring that workers under MGNREGA receive their wages on time.

For instance, in various states, courts have ordered timely payment of wages, especially in situations where delays were reported, and the government was not fulfilling its financial obligations to workers. Dr Ambedkar while addressing the constituent assembly 5 emphasized that, “we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of its social democracy. ” He further reflected on the meaning of ‘social democracy’ were he said ‘Social democracy means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity.

They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy.

CONCLUSION

The evolving dynamics between the executive and judiciary will play a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s future. The need for balanced governance, where policies are designed with a deep understanding of both constitutional values and societal aspirations, has never been more urgent. In the coming years, it will be crucial for both branches of government to move beyond adversarial posturing and foster a more cooperative relationship. This will not only ensure the Scroll.in/article/802495/why-br-ambedkars-three-warnings-in-his-last-speech-to-the-constituent-assemblyresonate-even-today

protection of individual rights and the principles of democracy but also enable the effective realization of policies that are both inclusive and transformative. The judiciary, with its role as a guardian of the Constitution, will continue to be an essential check on executive overreach, but it must also recognize the necessity of supporting the government’s welfare initiatives when they are in line with the broader public interest. Similarly, the executive, while pursuing its welfare-driven agendas, must strive for transparency, accountability, and respect for constitutional boundaries to avoid overstepping its mandate. As India enters a new phase in its democratic evolution, the future will depend on the ability of both the executive and judiciary to engage in a dialogue that transcends political and institutional divides.

By strengthening democratic institutions, fostering mutual respect, and being attuned to the real-world challenges faced by the marginalized, India can pave the way for a more just, equitable, and prosperous society. The success of the 21st-century India hinges on the collective ability of its institutions to evolve in response to the changing needs of its people, ensuring that both political and social democracy are not just ideals but lived realities for all its citizens.