Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation
Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation
1. Judicial Activism
a) Definition
Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting citizens’ rights and enforcing constitutional morality.
It involves the courts going beyond mere interpretation of law to create new rights, enforce duties, or address social issues.
It contrasts with judicial restraint, where courts limit themselves to interpreting law strictly as written.
b) Features of Judicial Activism
Expansion of fundamental rights.
Enforcing social justice.
Protecting environment and weaker sections.
Reviewing and striking down executive or legislative actions violating constitutional principles.
Using innovative procedures like suo moto actions.
c) Significance
Helps fill legislative or executive gaps.
Safeguards rights when other branches fail.
Ensures rule of law and constitutional supremacy.
Promotes justice and equality.
d) Case Law Illustrations
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting limits on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
This was an example of judicial activism protecting the constitutional framework.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
The Court expanded the meaning of Right to Life and Personal Liberty, ensuring procedural fairness.
This broadened individual rights beyond traditional interpretations.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
The Court issued guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace in absence of legislation.
This is a landmark case of judicial activism safeguarding women’s rights.
2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
a) Definition
PIL is a legal action initiated in a court of law for the protection of public interest or rights of disadvantaged groups.
It allows any public-spirited person or organization to approach courts on behalf of those unable to access justice themselves.
PIL expands access to justice and strengthens democracy.
b) Characteristics of PIL
No personal interest needed; focus is on larger public good.
Relaxed procedural rules.
Used to address issues like environment, human rights, corruption, and social welfare.
Judicial supervision of administrative action.
c) Evolution of PIL
Originated from the idea that justice should be accessible to all.
Courts adopted a liberal approach to locus standi (right to sue).
PIL became a tool for social change and accountability.
d) Case Law Illustrations
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (The Judges’ Transfer Case)
Expanded locus standi to allow any citizen to file PIL.
The Court acknowledged PIL as an instrument of social justice.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
PIL was used to enforce environmental protection.
The Court passed directions to control pollution in Delhi.
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)
PIL highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners.
Led to reforms ensuring speedy trials and prisoners’ rights.
3. Interrelation Between Judicial Activism and PIL
| Judicial Activism | Public Interest Litigation (PIL) |
|---|---|
| Courts take proactive stance | PIL is a tool for courts to address public issues |
| Expands judicial role | PIL expands access to justice |
| Addresses constitutional and social rights | PIL enforces social welfare and public interest |
| Sometimes initiates actions suo moto | PIL allows third parties to raise issues on behalf of others |
4. Conclusion
Judicial Activism represents the judiciary’s active role in ensuring justice beyond strict legal formalism.
Public Interest Litigation is a mechanism empowering courts to address public grievances and enforce rights.
Together, they have transformed the Indian legal landscape, ensuring laws serve the needs of society, protect vulnerable groups, and uphold constitutional values.
RELATED Blog
0 comments