How does the President's intervention in judicial matters affect the balance of power among the three branches of government?

The Indian Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances among the executive, legislature, and judiciary to prevent the concentration of power. The President, as the head of the executive, has certain powers that can influence judicial matters, especially through mechanisms like seeking the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 (Advisory Jurisdiction).

• Impact on Judicial Independence: When the President intervenes in judicial matters, it can be seen as an attempt by the executive to influence or seek clarification on judicial decisions. While Article 143 allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advice, frequent or unnecessary references may be perceived as undermining judicial authority.
• Checks and Balances: Presidential references are intended to clarify complex legal or constitutional issues. However, if used in response to judgments that displease the executive, it may blur the separation of powers and disturb the balance among the branches.
• Legislature-Executive-Judiciary Relations: Such interventions can cause friction between the judiciary and executive, and may also affect legislative processes if the legislature feels its authority is being bypassed or questioned through judicial review or executive action.
• Precedent and Public Perception: The manner and frequency of presidential interventions can set precedents for future governments. Overuse may erode public confidence in the independence of the judiciary and the sanctity of its decisions.
• Federal Dynamics: In cases involving states (like the Kerala government’s criticism), presidential intervention can be viewed as the Centre interfering in matters that concern state autonomy, affecting the federal balance.