Tussle between Executive and Judiciary not good for democracy,

Legal experts today cautioned that public sparring between the judiciary and the executive could be detrimental to democracy, a day after the Chief Justice of India and the Law Minister openly disagreed over judicial powers in the presence of the prime minister.
At a function to mark the Constitution Day yesterday, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had wondered why the judiciary doesn't trust him and the prime minister to appoint "fair judges," in a reference to the National Judicial Appointments Commission judgement reviving the Supreme Court Collegium.
In response, Chief Justice Dipak Misra had said that "there should be mutual respect and there cannot be any claim for supremacy by any of the wings". Prime Minister Narendra Modi was present at the function in the national capital.

A day before, at another event on Saturday, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had also said the courts cannot perform the functions of the executive and the independence of the two will have to strictly maintained.
Responding to questions on the debate, senior advocate Dushyant Dave told PTI it would be good for democracy if both judiciary and executive do not spar in public, as both have their own respective rights.
"The government must realise that the judiciary has a role and they certainly can ask questions from the executive and the latter should not shy away from answering," Dave said.

"The judiciary also needs to introspect and try not to interfere in the arena exclusively meant for the executive," he added.

Another senior advocate Raj Panjwani termed the scenario of tussle as 'unfortunate' and said proper caution should be maintained by both the wings.
"This is unfortunate that basic principles of law have become a bone of contention. However, judiciary needs to refrain from stepping into the shoes of the executive. One of the modes which the executive could have resorted to is by filing appropriate application before the court instead of chest thumping in public," Panjwani said.
Senior advocate Aman Lekhi said he will not prefer to call the public sparring a "tussle".

"I will not call it a tussle," he told PTI.
"The judiciary and the executive both are doing their work. The role of courts is absolutely different and they have a role to enforce the law. No government can claim immunity from scrutiny. The role of the court requires intervention if the situation demands," Lekhi added.
This is not the first time that the two branches have had disagreements.
Some months ago, then Chief Justice of India T S Thakur had asserted that the judiciary intervened only when the executive failed in its constitutional duties.
In 2016, Justice Thakur had also cautioned that no organ of government should cross the "lakshman rekha" and stressed that the judiciary has been given the duty to watch that everything remained within the limit.

Speaking at a function to celebrate Constitution Day last year, Thakur had also said the judiciary had every right to set aside any law made by Parliament, if it was against the Constitution or beyond the limits granted by the statute book.
Recently, the apex court in a detailed judgement had held that privacy was a "fundamental right" when the government had argued that the citizens have a right to privacy but that was not absolute.
In 2015, the top court and the government had been at loggerheads over the manner in which the appointment of judges was to be carried out.

The apex court had struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and asked the government to draft a new Memorandum of Procedure to lay down guidelines for appointments to the higher judiciary in consultation with the CJI and the collegium.
This was followed by the subsequent embarrassments for the Union government in the Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh cases. The apex court had quashed President's rule in Arunachal Pradesh while in Uttarakhand it ordered floor test in the state Assembly which subsequently led to reinstatement of the Congress government.