Constitutional Morality and Judicial Activism: A Critical Study of Separation of Powers

Abstract

This paper examines the complex relationship between constitutional morality and judicial

activism within the framework of separation of powers. As democratic institutions evolve, the

judiciary's role in interpreting constitutional principles has expanded, often leading to debates

about the appropriate boundaries of judicial intervention. This study critically analyzes how

constitutional morality influences judicial decision-making and its impact on the delicate balance

of power among the three branches of government. Through an examination of theoretical

foundations, comparative analysis, and case studies, this research explores whether judicial

activism represents a necessary evolution in constitutional governance or a departure from

democratic principles. The paper argues that while constitutional morality provides essential

guidance for judicial interpretation, excessive judicial activism can undermine the separation of

powers doctrine and democratic accountability. The findings suggest that a balanced approach,

incorporating both constitutional morality and institutional restraint, is crucial for maintaining

the integrity of democratic governance while ensuring constitutional rights are protected.