Question text not available

They are like that destroyed me State while forming policies. Supreme court in Munirring Mills case, 1980, held them as a wheel of cheriot for Judicial local revolution along with the fundamental sights Vulsahy guidline given by Supreme court in 1998. Violation of separation of powers: (1) Legislation is the responsibility of Parliament & not Judiciary. Parliament elected by people is primary body for making laws as per principles of parliamentary democracy. (3) Judiciary is unelected body and is responsible for delivering justice & enforce laws passed by parliament (4) Parliament or Executive shall decide the policy matters & not the Judiciary (e.g. Stiff case essentially) (6) Violation of parliamentary principle of separation of powers based on interlocking and interdependence through the doctrine of checks & balances. Creates a Third chamber: (1) Judiciary becomes the most powerful body (e.g Basic structure doctrine innovation of sforme court) (2) Assumes roles of constitutional assembly by exercising powers not given by the assembly to it. (3) Reduces significance of other two bodies (4) Judicial activism and overreach affect the other two bodies.

Limitations of DPAs: (1) Lack of coherence & consistency (2) Conflict with fundamental sights (3) Not enforceable except article 32/42 (4) Led to executive-legislative Judicial conflicts (e.g. Champakam case, Minerva Mills case etc.). Construed as pious aspirations. But years ahead: (4) Balance held by supreme court in Minerva Mills case (5) Make them enforceable without violating fundamental sights (c) Continuous monitoring of their implementation by government of Light. DPAs act as a beacon of realism for actualization of UNHAT.