Discuss the role of the judiciary in electoral reforms citing suitable cases. How far do you agree that judiciary induced reforms violate the principle of separation of power?

In 1975, in Indira Gandhi's case, it invalidated the law that kept Prime Minister's election disputes outside judicial review.

In 1992, in Kihoto case, it declared that anti-defection decision of the speaker is subject to judicial review.

The SC in a case ruled that convicted candidates stand disqualified from the House from the date of conviction, and not until after they appeal.

The SC asked parties to reveal criminal background of its election candidates.

SC ruled that defection of a candidate can also be judged by the conduct of a member, not merely his vote.

However, some experts say that Judiciary is violating the separation of powers as:

1. Its mandate is to ensure the actions of a party are in line with prevailing laws, and not to instruct what those actions should be.

2. The government is an elected body, and thus better representative of people's views.

Other issues also exist, such as:

Judiciary is itself steeped in issues like pendency, delays, non-transparent, etc. Thus, it should set its house in order first.