Perceived tensions between Executive & Judiciary?

Often media and people in general perceive tension between judiciary and executive whenever either High Court or Supreme Court gives a direction to the executive or the Government in a political sensitive matter. But, this tension is only a perception and nothing more.

Each-day, hundreds of writ petitions are filed in various High Courts in this country and in each writ petition, either the government or the governmental organ will be a party to the proceeding while a citizen becomes the petitioner. High Courts can give directions to the Government on various issues. The usual grievance against the Government is that they don't implement the court orders with true spirit and rather tries to either dilute the direction or ignore it. What can a citizen do when a court direction is ignored?. He can do nothing except to again file a writ petition seeking implementation of earlier direction or initiate very confusing and lengthy contempt proceedings. This is how, citizens or public spirited citizens are harassed by the Governments and this is no secret and everyone knows this. 

Courts can not punish people for contempt so easily and in many cases, un-conditional apology becomes a big defence. 

But, in politically sensitive matters and in cases where media follows-up, Government will have to respond to public perception and even the Courts will be in a position to ensure implementation of its directions so swiftly.

Constitution is supreme in this country as settled by the Supreme Court. Doctrine of separation of powers are very clear and even then, this perception of tension between executive and judiciary often comes-out in the open. 

Courts are also very clear and careful; and they normally do not enter into executive/legislative domain except in exceptional cases. 

Even the judges of High Court are very careful in exercising their precious power under Constitution as judges can not be removed so easily except by impeachment once appointed. 

There is a perception in the recent past that quality is being compromised when it comes to judicial appointments and this is also a reason for seeking reversal of 'collegium system of appointments' and so that executive can be questioned for bad appointments. Now, even if someone is disappointed with some appointment, he can do nothing as the judges in the 'collegium' are not elected representatives being accountable to the public in a democracy. 

Political favoritism is  an allegation leveled often against some judges and these issues are discussed by the legal fraternity very routinely. No political party, according to me, or even a Senior Advocate is entitled to speak on these issues as they know as to how this system functions. 

Many do not understand as to how judiciary can resist this move of reversing 'collegium' kind of appointments in view of public perception and many speaking against the current system. 

I don't think that, in India, there is a scope for tension between executive and judiciary. Balance between 'judicial activism' and 'judicial restraint' would be maintained. If judiciary is disappointed with the executive in implementing its directions in true spirit, the judiciary can pass very lengthy judgement criticizing the executive and it becomes a part of record and nothing more can happen in this country as everyone knows.

Note: the views expressed are my personal and do not represent anyone or organisation. No disrespect to courts or judges.