Judicial non-interference with the other arms of government
Flowing from the separation of powers doctrine is the principle of non-interference as a general rule, which implies that each co-equal branches of government should respect the “operational space” of the others. The Judiciary, in particular, is counselled to avoid intruding on the Executive’s and Legislature’s domains except where constitutionally necessary and justifiable. The Courts must be conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority and the constitution's design to leave certain matters to other branches of government. Similarly, the executive and legislature must also observe the constitutional limits of their authority. This means that the judiciary should not unnecessarily and/or without constitutional justification interfere in the functions and processes of other branches of government unless to do so is mandated by the Constitution.
Consequently, it is crucial to underscore that labelling a matter as a “political question” is not a license for the Executive or Legislature to violate the clear terms of the Constitution. If a claimant can demonstrate that a political branch has exceeded or abused its constitutional powers, this Court will intervene to say so.
Under constitutional law, there is a strong presumption of constitutionality or regularity in favour of official acts of the Executive and Legislature. Courts generally begin with the assumption that public bodies or officials discharge their constitutional duties lawfully and in good faith. This “presumption of regularity” is a deference doctrine that places the burden on a challenger to show otherwise. It means that judges do not lightly second-guess the stated reasons or actions by public bodies or officials, and will credit them with constitutional compliance unless clear evidence proves a violation.
