UPSC Mains 2020 GS2 Q12 — Separation of Powers
Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities. (Answer in 250 words)
Question Decoded — examiner's intent
- Directive verbs
- justify
- Scope keywords
- Judicial Legislationantitheticaldoctrine of separation of powersIndian Constitutionpublic interest petitionsguidelines to executive authorities
- Implicit sub-parts
- Explain how Judicial Legislation (Judicial Activism/Overreach) violates the Article 50 spirit and the functional overlap under the Indian Constitution.
- Identify the 'governance vacuum' or executive/legislative failures that necessitate filing of large-scale PILs.
- Evaluate the 'justification' by showing how such guidelines fulfill the constitutional goal of 'Complete Justice' (Article 142) vs. violating the separation of powers.
- Differentiate between legitimate judicial intervention and excessive judicial adventurism in the context of PILs.
- Common pitfalls
- Focusing too much on the history of PILs (Bhagwati/Iyer) without addressing the specific conflict with 'separation of powers'.
- Failing to define 'Judicial Legislation'—it is not just judgment; it is the court creating new laws/rules like the Vishaka Guidelines.
- Providing a one-sided argument either for or against the Judiciary without the nuanced 'justification' requested by the prompt.
- Neglecting to mention Article 142 and the 'Doctrine of Essentiality' as the constitutional basis for such interventions.
- Dimensions required
- Constitutional Law (Art 50, 141, 142)Governance (Executive accountability)Human Rights/Social JusticeLegal Philosophy (Procedural vs Substantive Due Process)
- Marks allocation hint
Allocate 50 words to defining the tension between judicial legislation and separation of powers. Spend 150 words on the core 'justification'—linking executive inaction/policy gaps to the necessity of PILs for rights protection. Use the final 50 words to conclude with the need for judicial restraint to maintain the 'Lakshman Rekha' while ensuring justice.
Unlock the full analysis for this question
You've seen the question and its examiner-intent decoding. Subscribers also get:
- 🔗 Similar Previous Year Questions — cross-year, cross-paper matches so you study the topic, not the question
- 📚 Source Map — verified citations from Laxmikanth, NCERT, PRS, Yojana, Economic Survey, Spectrum
- 🌱 How this topic is evolving — current-affairs bridge anchored to live TARS news clustering
- 🧭 Examiner's Pattern — how the topic has been framed across every year UPSC has tested it
- ✍️ Answer Skeleton — a structured outline (intro → body → conclusion) you can flesh out
- 🎯 AI evaluation — write your answer, get rubric-based scoring from gs-eval
Or browse 132+ free preview questions across all years and papers — the first 3 questions of every paper are unlocked.
Ready to practice?
Subscribers can attempt this question in 250 words and get an instant, rubric-based evaluation showing where they stand.
Subscribe to evaluate your answer →