Yes, judicial activism can lead to a conflict between the judiciary and the executive. This happens because judicial activism often involves the judiciary taking up matters that traditionally belong to the domain of the executive.

Judicial activism has blurred the line of distinction between the executive and legislature on one hand and the judiciary on the other. The courts have been involved in resolving questions which actually belong to the executive. Matters such as reducing air or sound pollution, investigating cases of corruption, or bringing about electoral reform are not exactly the duty of the judiciary.

For instance, the Supreme Court has given directions to CBI to initiate investigations against politicians and bureaucrats in the hawala case, the Narasimha Rao case, and the illegal allotment of petrol pumps case. These are matters that should ideally be handled by the administration under the supervision of the legislatures.

This has made the balance among the three organs of government very delicate. Democratic government is based on each organ of government respecting the powers and jurisdiction of the others. When the judiciary oversteps into executive territory, it creates strains on this democratic principle.

Therefore, while judicial activism has made the judiciary more people-friendly, it has also created potential conflicts with the executive by encroaching upon its jurisdiction.