New Delhi: Successive chief justices have often spoken about the need to strictly follow the doctrine of separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. After all, that is what the drafters of our constitution expected.But, in recent times, there have been instances, especially in politically-sensitive matters or where the Narendra Modi government finds itself fully cornered, when the Supreme Court has ended up almost sidestepping this golden rule, often giving the Executive a way out of a logjam, or at least a face-saver.Three instances:1. ‘Reconsider’ Jantar MantarOn October 9, 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging strong-arm tactics by the Delhi Police to stop citizens from protesting, asked the Union government to take an appropriate decision on “reconsidering” Jantar Mantar as the designated protest venue, and picking another location. The court said this after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Union would consider re-designating another site.The court’s rationale for making the suggestion was that Jantar Mantar was “ill-equipped for large demonstrations” as it lacked proper toilets, water, shelter and smooth emergency medical or ambulance access.As expected, within two days, the Delhi Police on Monday, October 12, de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site, while announcing Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground in north Delhi and Central Business District or CBD Ground in east Delhi as designated venues for holding protests.The court had the option of taking the police to task for using pellet guns (during the July 20 protest) and beating youngsters brutally – as it did again this weekend, when unprecedented scenes of repression played out on the capital’s streets.But more importantly, why didn’t the police and the Union ministry of home affairs (MHA) give permission to the protesters to hold peaceful demonstrations at a time when Jantar Mantar was still open as a protest venue?2. Blocking of roads during farm protestAt the height of the farmers’ stir, in 2021, a Supreme Court bench headed by Sanjay Kishan Kaul had expressed concern over the continued blocking of the national highway, causing harassment to commuters.The apex court raised eyebrows when it spoke of the need to balance the right to protest with the public’s convenience to assert that free movement of traffic couldn’t be stopped. In doing so, the court ignored the fact that most of the blockades were the result of action by the Union- and BJP-ruled government of Haryana, which, among other things, had even dug nails into the roads and placed concrete blocks to obstruct roads.At a time when citizens expect the Supreme Court to guard them against excesses of the state, courts over the past decade have ended up giving the Modi government a way out – including via obiter dicta or observations, which give enough room to the government to use strong-arm tactics.3. Delhi excise policy caseIn the Delhi excise policy case, it was again the Supreme Court that allowed the Executive – the Enforcement Directorate in this case – to wade into uncharted territory. During the hearing of the case, the bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, who later became the Chief Justice of India, wondered aloud why the Enforcement Directorate had not made the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), then ruling Delhi, an accused in the case despite claims that the party was a “beneficiary” of the scam.As if not to let the court down, the Enforcement Directorate’s counsel informed the Delhi high court a few months later that it had decided to make AAP an accused in the money laundering case stemming from the ‘excise scam’.Incidentally, all the main accused in the Delhi excise policy case, including former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and other co-accused were later discharged by the special court.