The judiciary in India acts as the guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that the legislature and executive function within their constitutional limits. When courts proactively interpret laws to protect citizens’ rights, it is termed judicial activism. However, when courts encroach upon the domain of the legislature or executive, it becomes judicial overreach, thereby upsetting the delicate balance of power envisioned under the doctrine of separation of powers.

Judicial Activism: Strengthening Democracy

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), the judiciary expanded access to justice — e.g., Hussainara Khatoon (1979) guaranteeing speedy trials, and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) protecting women against workplace harassment.
2. Accountability of the Executive: The judiciary ensures the executive’s adherence to constitutional principles, as seen in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) which widened the scope of Article 21.
3. Environmental and Social Justice: In cases like MC Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court actively safeguarded the right to a clean environment.
4. Expansion of Rights: Recognition of Right to Privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017) and decriminalisation of Section 377 (Navtej Johar, 2018) highlight the judiciary’s role in promoting social justice and constitutional morality.

Judicial Overreach: Threat to Separation of Powers

1. Encroachment on Legislative Domain: In Prakash Singh (2006), the Court issued detailed directions for police reforms — a policy matter ideally left to the legislature.
2. Interference in Executive Functions: Instances like banning diesel vehicles, limiting firecracker use, or monitoring administrative appointments have been criticised as excessive judicial intervention.
3. Erosion of Democratic Accountability: When unelected judges frame or dictate policy, it risks undermining the democratic legitimacy of elected bodies.

Striking a Balance

1. The judiciary must act as the sentinel on the qui vive — vigilant but restrained.
2. Mechanisms like judicial self-restraint, respect for constitutional boundaries, and greater institutional dialogue among the three organs are essential.

Judicial activism is indispensable for upholding constitutional ideals and citizens’ rights. Yet, when it transforms into judicial overreach, it threatens the principle of separation of powers and weakens democratic accountability. A balanced approach — where the judiciary acts as an enabler, not a substitute for governance — is crucial for maintaining constitutional harmony and democratic vibrancy.