Traditionally, the judiciary's role has been perceived as primarily interpretative and adjudicative – interpreting laws, resolving disputes, and ensuring that the executive and legislative branches act within their constitutional limits. This 'limiting' function is crucial for upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights. However, in many contemporary democracies, including India, the judiciary has indeed expanded its role to play a more 'positive' and proactive part in policy formulation, often going beyond mere limitation to actively mandate government actions.

This expanded role can be observed through several mechanisms:

1. Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Through PILs, individuals or groups can bring matters of public importance before the courts, often concerning issues like environmental protection, human rights, social justice, and governance. In response, courts have not only struck down unconstitutional policies but have also issued detailed directives to the executive to formulate and implement specific policies or schemes. For example, courts have mandated measures for pollution control, protection of vulnerable groups, and improvement of public health infrastructure.

2. Filling Legislative Gaps: When the legislature fails to enact laws on critical issues, or when existing laws are inadequate, courts sometimes step in to provide guidelines or frameworks that effectively function as policy until the legislature acts. A prominent example is the Vishaka Guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace, which served as law until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act was passed.

3. Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary's role as the guardian of fundamental rights often leads it into policy domains. For instance, interpreting the 'right to life' (Article 21) to include the right to a clean environment, right to education, or right to health, compels the government to formulate policies to secure these rights.

4. Oversight and Monitoring of Policy Implementation: Beyond mandating policies, courts frequently monitor their implementation, holding the executive accountable for delays or failures. This oversight ensures that policies are not just formulated but also effectively translated into action, thereby influencing the practical aspects of governance.

Commentary:

While this 'positive' role can be beneficial in ensuring justice, protecting rights, and addressing governmental inaction, it also raises concerns about the separation of powers and judicial overreach. Critics argue that judges, lacking electoral accountability and expertise in policy-making, may not be best suited to formulate complex policies that require extensive public debate, resource allocation considerations, and technical knowledge. It can also lead to a blurring of lines between the judicial, executive, and legislative functions, potentially undermining democratic principles.

However, proponents argue that judicial activism is often a necessary corrective when other branches of government are unresponsive or ineffective. It acts as a crucial check and balance, particularly in developing democracies where governance deficits might be prevalent. The judiciary's intervention can catalyze social change, protect marginalized communities, and ensure that the state fulfills its welfare obligations.

In conclusion, the judiciary's evolving role from merely limiting government actions to actively mandating them reflects a dynamic interpretation of its constitutional mandate. While it offers a vital avenue for justice and accountability, maintaining a delicate balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint is essential for the healthy functioning of a democratic system.