In India, our Constitution sets up three main parts of government: the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. Each has its job to do, like players in a team. The judiciary looks at laws and makes sure rights are safe. The executive runs the daily work, like police and services. The legislature makes the laws. But sometimes, the judiciary and executive argue, and people like you and me wonder—who is looking out for us?
This fight has gotten louder lately. With cases where governors hold back state bills or delays in picking judges, it’s like two family members not talking, and the kids suffer. Think about it: when courts are slow because there aren’t enough judges, or when government doesn’t follow court orders, who loses? Us, the common people. Let’s look at this step by step, like chatting over chai, to understand what’s going on.
The Basics: What Do They Do?
First, let’s recall what each does, in simple terms. The judiciary is like the referee in a cricket match. It checks if everyone plays by the rules—the Constitution. It includes the Supreme Court at the top, high courts in states, and lower courts in districts. Judges are supposed to be free from politics, so they can decide fairly. Article 50 of the Constitution says the state should keep judiciary separate from executive in public services. This means no mixing, to keep things clean.
The executive is the doer. It carries out laws. At the center, it’s the President, Prime Minister, ministers, and officers. In states, governors, chief ministers, and their teams. They handle police, schools, hospitals—everything we need daily. But they must follow the law, not make up their own rules.
When these two clash, it’s often because one thinks the other is stepping on its toes. For example, if the executive delays what the court says, or if courts tell executive how to run things. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar recently said the judiciary should not overstep, calling some powers like a “nuke missile.” He meant Article 142, where courts can do anything for complete justice. It’s like giving too much power without checks.
But why does this happen? India is big, with many problems. Governments want quick action, courts want fairness. Sometimes, they bump heads.
Recent Fights: What’s Going On?
Lately, there have been big arguments. One is about governors and bills. In 2025, the Supreme Court said governors can’t sit on state bills forever—it’s illegal. Like in Tamil Nadu, where the governor held back bills, and the court said he can’t kill them by delay. The court even asked if governors or the President ignore timelines, can they be in contempt? This shows tension between state governments and center-appointed governors.
Another big issue is picking judges. The collegium—top judges recommend names—but the government delays approving them. In 2025, there are nearly 5000 empty spots in lower courts, and the Supreme Court urged to fill them fast. Some names wait years, causing backlogs. Over 5 crore cases pending! Chief Justice Gavai said pendency is a major problem, hurting India’s growth.
Even in speeches, leaders clash. Vice President Dhankhar talked about a judge’s cash scandal and called for accountability. Government sources say respect for judiciary is key, but there’s a line. On X, people say judiciary and executive are heading for a big fight.
It’s like two bulls in a field—neither backs down, but the grass gets trampled. And the grass is us.
Why Does This Matter to You and Me?
Now, why should we care? Because when they fight, we pay the price. First, justice is slow. With few judges, cases pile up. A simple fight over land can take 10 years. People wait in jails for trials that never come. In 2025, backlog might grow 15% by 2030. That’s millions suffering.
Second, policies get stuck. If executive ignores courts, like in environment cases, pollution worsens. Or if courts stop government plans, development slows. Remember, courts are called guardians of the Constitution because they protect our rights. But if they clash, trust breaks.
Third, we lose faith. When leaders criticize each other, like calling judiciary obstructionist, people think the system is broken. On X, one user said judiciary has never been weaker. Another called for avoiding clashes. It’s like parents fighting—kids feel unsafe.
Justice Chandrachud said judiciary needs difficult conversations to fix issues like adjournments and vacations. He meant we must talk to improve. Government says governance is with elected leaders. But without trust, democracy weakens.
Imagine your local police not listening to court, or court telling police how to patrol. Chaos!
Real Stories: Lessons from the Past
Let’s look at examples to see the impact.
First, the farmers’ protests. In 2020-2021, farmers opposed new laws. Supreme Court stepped in, stayed the laws, and set a committee to talk. It showed judiciary protecting public interest when executive pushed laws without enough talk. Laws were repealed, but the clash highlighted how courts can check power.
Second, Delhi government vs Lieutenant Governor (LG). In 2018 and 2023, Supreme Court said Delhi government has control over services, not LG. But fights continue over admin control. It shows how executive (center through LG) can override elected state leaders, and courts try to balance.
These cases teach us: When branches work together, people win. When they don’t, delays and confusion hurt.
What the Constitution Says: Built-in Protections
Our Constitution is smart—it has checks to stop one branch from dominating. Article 50 calls for separating judiciary from executive. Articles 124 to 147 set up Supreme Court powers and independence. Judges can’t be easily removed, salaries protected.
The idea is balance. Executive implements, judiciary reviews. Like brakes in a car—needed to stop crashes.
But in practice, issues like judicial independence tipping. International Commission of Jurists said in 2025 that delays in appointments hurt independence. Experts say under Modi, judiciary silent on some issues.
Chandrachud said independent judiciary means judges free in duties. He batted for collegium but told executive to avoid grandstanding.
What People Say: Voices from All Sides
Many have spoken. Justice Chandrachud said, “The Constitution is not just a book. It’s a promise to the people. Both judiciary and executive must honour it.” He meant it’s about us.
A government spokesperson in 2025 said, “We respect the judiciary, but governance must remain with the elected government.”
Experts like Christophe Jaffrelot say judicial independence declining under Modi, with powerplay. On X, one said judiciary and executive working well now. Another worried about clash.
Sanjeev Sanyal said judiciary is biggest roadblock to Viksit Bharat. But Chandrachud said for democracy to flourish, judiciary vital.
It’s like hearing both sides in a family dispute—everyone has a point, but need to listen.
FAQs: Common Questions Answered
Why is the judiciary called the guardian of the Constitution?
The judiciary makes sure laws and government actions follow the Constitution. It protects our basic rights, like equality and freedom. If a law is unfair, courts can strike it down. For example, in farmers’ case, SC stayed laws to check if they hurt rights. Without this, executive could do anything, harming people.
Can the executive ignore court orders?
No, they can’t legally. All must follow rulings. But sometimes, delays happen, like in appointments. This weakens democracy, as Bombay HC said if agencies and judiciary not independent, threat to democracy. Courts can punish for contempt, but it’s rare against government.
Who appoints judges in India?
Through collegium—senior judges recommend, executive approves. But delays common, with government sending back names. In 2025, SC said consider experience to fill spots.
What happens when judiciary and executive clash?
Confusion, slow justice, bad governance. Citizens suffer with pending cases, stuck policies. Like in Delhi, fights over control delay services. It erodes trust, as reports say judiciary silent on some issues.
How can we fix this?
More talks, respect lines. Strengthen independence, fill vacancies fast. Public pressure helps, like protests reminding them to serve us.
Time for Teamwork
The real winner shouldn’t be judiciary or executive—it’s us, the people. India’s democracy is strong because of balance. When they clash, like over bills or appointments, it’s the common man who waits longer for justice or services. As Chandrachud said, judiciary must have humanity. Government must show statesmanship.
Let’s hope they remember: The Constitution is our promise. Working together, they protect us. Fighting, they fail us. What do you think—share in comments!