I do not believe with the 1997 reference, the Supreme Court caused a constitutional revolution or that it in any way set aside the principle of the separation of powers. It said that in addition to the democratic principle and other constitutional principles, there is the principle of judicial independence and that, in order to comply with that principle, it would create an advisory commission that would make a recommendation to the government. The government would then have to try and support the recommendation or reject it, if it had valid reasons to do so. Subsequently, the courts would examine the government's response based on the test of simple rationality, which is reasonable.
However, when you read all the reports, it becomes clear that the choice of a government's rationale can vary considerably. It is not necessarily unreasonable to emphasize one aspect more than another. Governments succeed one another and we all know that they are elected on the basis of political platforms that may be different.
So I am not in any way scandalized by the fact that the government is not taking this to the letter, 100%. There is nothing unconstitutional in that. The Supreme Court did in fact open the door to that kind of difference of opinion.