Most of us believe that legislature is the supreme, and for the judiciary, judges are supreme.

But
the actual fact is that they are supreme in their departments only; and both the legislature and
judiciary has special sphere and one cannot encroach that of other. To regulate India, they act 
both in harmony and in competition depending on their role. It is the directive principle of the
State policy stated by the Constitution of India that they should be separated from each other.
Still they act together and there is a thin line between them just to make a transparent,
accountable and independent judiciary and legislative system.

The drafters of the Constitution drafted the Constitution of India in such a way that it is
applicable to each and every citizen and for their welfare.  According to the preamble of the
Constitution of India, it safeguards each and every aspect of rights of common citizen with the
assurance of sovereignty, republic, democratic, socialist and secular India. The drafters in a wise
manner distributed the power to regulate India in 3 divisions, namely the Executive, the judiciary
and the legislature. According to Article 50 of the Indian Constitution, judiciary should be
independent from executive.

It is not only the separation of executive from judiciary; the same thing applies to executive also.
These three organs stay separated from each other and act independently according to the
separation of powers of Government doctrine. The main aim of this distribution is to ensure that
the activities of their parts are free from external as well as internal pressures.  This rule is the
basic structure of the constitution. So, it cannot be altered or amended even by the power of Act
368, which empowers parliament to amend the Constitution. According to the landmark 
Supreme Court judgment[1], no law can be passed or no law can be made by amending the
Constitution against this rule.
Judiciary system in India mainly is the system of courts that interpret and apply the laws in
accordance with the state for resolution of disputes. In this system, the Supreme Court stands in
the apex position, which also known as the highest Court of appeal, with other lower courts.
Likewise, Legislature is a decision making body that has the power to enact, repeal and amend
laws.  These two pillars of our democratic society are under constitutional obligation not to
encroach the jurisdiction of each other.
 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS THAT DESCRIBES THE DEPENDANCE OF

THESE TWO DEPARTMENTS ON EACH OTHER.
1. Appointment of Judges of Supreme Court or High Court:-
Article 124 explains the procedure of appointment of Supreme Court judges and High court
Judges. In the appointment procedure, the President plays an important role, as the appointments
depend on him, along with the consultation from Chief Justice of Supreme Court and other
judges.

2. Removal of Judges:-
A Judge of Supreme Court can hold his office until he attains the age of 65 years, and for High
Court Judges it is 62 years. According to Art 124 (2) and 124 (4), a judge of Supreme Court or,
High Court can give his resignation to the President only in writing.  No judge can be removed
from his office without the order of the President passed after the address of each house of
parliament supported by the total membership of that house. Mainly Article 124 is a lengthy and
standard procedure for removal of judges of Supreme Court or high court form his office. This
motion was 1st brought in the case of Justice Ramaswamy.

3. Salaries of Justice:-
Article 125 (1) and Article 221 (1) state the salaries of Supreme Court Judges and High Court
Judges respectively. According to this Article, the Judges shall be paid such salaries as
determined by the Parliament by law, and until contrary provisions are made, they shall be paid
such salaries as specified in the 2nd schedule of the Indian Constitution. Moreover the
Parliament is authorized to make laws to regulate the leave, allowance, other privilege available
to  Judges.

4. Autonomy:-
Article 146 confers autonomy to the Supreme Court. The chief justice of supreme court is
empowered to appoint officers and servants and he shall prescribe the condition of service by
rules, subject to the law, which parliament may make. Similarly, Article 229 empowers the Chief
Justice who empowers the Chief justice of High Court with similar power.

5. Restrictions on discussions:-
Article 121, 122 and Art 211 are those Articles of constitution of India which state the difference
of activities of these two. Art 211 says that, the conduct of the Supreme Court Judge or the high
Court Judges cannot be discussed in the parliament unless it is about matter of motion (e.g.
removal of judges), and Article 121 gives privilege to the parliament in its proceedings that, the
court is not authorized to challenge the validity of the proceedings of the parliament. In the case
of Raja Ram Pal v. The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and Ors, it has been held by the
Supreme Court that in the context of article 122(1), mere irregularity of the procedure cannot be
a ground to challenge the proceedings of the Parliament.
6. Judicial Immunities:-
Article 105 (2) gives judicial immunities to the conduct and behavior of any member of
parliament: ‘No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect
of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee therefore, and no
person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of
Parliament of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.’ Article 194 (2) grants the same
immunities to the members of the state legislative assemblies. In PV Narasimha Rao v.
State (1998) the supreme court took the position as per Article 105 (2): The bribe-taker MPs
who have voted in Parliament against the no-confidence motion are entitled to protection of
Article 105(2) and are not answerable in a Court of Law for alleged conspiracy and agreement.’
However, ‘The bribe-takers could be proceeded against by Parliament itself. This judgment
clearly established that parliament is the sole arbitrator of its business and proceedings and the
judiciary cannot come in this matter.

7. Discussion on sub-judice matter:-
Article 19 (1) (a) plays an important role in parliament democracy.  the parliament and members
of it are privileges to discuss any matter relating to the governance of the country and people. A
member. but as we know every right is itself bounded by some restriction, as so, the parliament’s
right of speech is restricted to discuss any matter, which is pending before the court to decide. A
member, during the course of his speech, is required not to refer to any matter of fact on which a
judicial decision is pending

RELATION BETWEEN  COURT AND LEGISLATURE

It is true that the Constitution of India don’t have a rigid framework for doctrine of separation of
powers, since the 3 organs of the State are so much concerned about their democratic
independent activities. Both executive and judiciary are sovereign within their jurisdiction. The
supremacy of legislature is inscribed in the constitution, but to challenge the act made by power
of the Constitution is the act of judiciary. [2]  
Judicial Review acts as a safeguard and inspector for the activities of legislature in case any ultra
Vires act is committed by the officials of legislature. The courts are concerned with interpreting
the laws and not to recommend what the law should be. It is the work of legislature to fulfill the
lacuna in laws, and enact laws or, amend laws.
Under article 368 of the Constitution, Parliament has been empowered to amend the Constitution
by way of addition, variation or repeal of any provision according to the procedure laid down
therein. But this constituent power is subject to the “doctrine of basic structure of the
Constitution” as propounded by the Supreme Courtvide its judgment in Kesavananda Bharati
Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala case, and reiterated in number of subsequent cases.
Accordingly, the position at present is that every provision of the Constitution can be amended
provided that the basic foundation and structure of the Constitution remains the same. The basic
features of the Constitution are not finite. In the Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case  and
also in theMinerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India case , it was observed by the Supreme Court
that the claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a ‘basic feature’ would be
determined by the Court in each case that comes before it. The Supreme Court besides being the
highest court of appeal in the country is also the guardian of the Constitution.
 
CONCLUSION
So from the above study we can draw an inference about the activities of legislature and
judiciary. The separation of sphere and regime of these two actually makes the government
transparent and accountable. Both of these regulate each other. Just because of separation of
judiciary from the legislative, there is an existence of liberty. If the powers of judiciary and
legislative are not separated then there may be arbitrary actions over the life and liberty of
citizens. Judges may act as both legislator and will be in a dominant position. The same applies
in case of legislature also. We all know that the Constitution is the backbone of all the existing
laws of India, and any law derogatory to this Act is calculated as invalid. In short, we can say
that the rights that are today available to us are mainly because of this, and mainly for the basic
Principles enclosed with it. It can be considered a great work from the side of the drafters of the
Constitution that empowered us to enjoy our rights, with the improvement of healthy and
prosperous country.