Judicial Activism In Criminal Law
1. What is Judicial Activism?
Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by courts, especially higher courts, in interpreting laws and the Constitution to protect fundamental rights, enforce social justice, and correct legislative or executive excesses.
In criminal law, judicial activism often involves courts stepping beyond mere interpretation to expand legal protections, ensure fair trials, uphold human rights, and curb misuse of power by authorities.
It contrasts with judicial restraint, where courts avoid interfering with legislative or executive actions unless clear violations occur.
2. Why is Judicial Activism Needed in Criminal Law?
To protect the rights of accused and convicts, especially marginalized groups.
To prevent misuse or abuse of criminal laws (e.g., for harassment or political vendetta).
To ensure fair investigation and trial procedures.
To promote speedy justice and reform of criminal justice system.
To uphold constitutional rights like the right to life, liberty, and dignity.
Key Judicial Activism Case Laws in Criminal Law
Case 1: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (AIR 1979 SC 1369)
Facts:
Thousands of undertrial prisoners were lodged in Bihar jails for years without trial.
Held:
The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of this gross violation of the right to speedy trial (Article 21) and ordered their immediate release if trials were not conducted within a reasonable time.
Significance:
Landmark example of judicial activism protecting the right to speedy trial.
Laid down the principle that justice delayed is justice denied.
Triggered prison reforms and changes in trial procedures.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving her a reason or opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) to include the right to fair procedure and due process.
Significance:
Changed the approach in criminal cases where procedural fairness became mandatory.
No deprivation of liberty without a fair hearing.
Strengthened protection against arbitrary executive action.
Case 3: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Facts:
Instances of custodial deaths and police torture were rampant.
Held:
The Supreme Court issued detailed directions to police to prevent custodial torture and deaths including:
Police must prepare arrest memos.
Medical examination of the arrested person.
Informing family members.
Maintaining proper detention records.
Significance:
Judicial activism directly curbed police brutality.
Improved custodial rights and accountability.
Reinforced constitutional protection against torture and cruel treatment.
Case 4: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts:
The constitutional validity of the death penalty was challenged.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that death penalty is constitutionally valid but only to be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases to prevent arbitrary sentencing.
Significance:
Judicial activism balanced between upholding law and protecting right to life.
Set strict guidelines for awarding death penalty.
Promoted humane treatment and restraint in criminal sentencing.
Case 5: Sheela Barse v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 1773
Facts:
The plight of women prisoners, especially undertrials, was brought to court’s notice.
Held:
The Supreme Court issued directions to improve the living conditions and rights of women prisoners.
Significance:
Judicial activism promoted gender-sensitive reforms in criminal justice.
Emphasized human dignity and rights of women accused and convicts.
Case 6: PUCL v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301 (Custodial Deaths Case)
Facts:
Reports of custodial deaths and disappearances.
Held:
The Court mandated guidelines for preventing custodial deaths and enforced compensation for victims.
Significance:
Strengthened the judicial role in monitoring police accountability and protecting human rights.
Case 7: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158
Facts:
Witness protection issues in the Gujarat riots cases.
Held:
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of protecting witnesses to ensure fair trials and prevent intimidation.
Significance:
Judicial activism secured due process rights by protecting witnesses in sensitive criminal cases.
Summary of Judicial Activism in Criminal Law
| Aspect | Judicial Activism Impact |
|---|---|
| Protection of Rights | Ensured speedy trials, fair procedures, and humane treatment of accused/prisoners |
| Police Accountability | Issued guidelines to curb custodial torture and deaths |
| Sentencing Reforms | Restriction on death penalty to rarest cases |
| Prison Reforms | Improved conditions for undertrial and women prisoners |
| Witness Protection | Strengthened due process through witness safeguarding |
| Fundamental Rights | Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include procedural fairness |
Conclusion
Judicial activism in criminal law has been instrumental in:
Defending the constitutional rights of the accused.
Reforming criminal procedure and prison conditions.
Curbing police excesses and misuse of power.
Enhancing fairness and transparency in the justice delivery system.
The judiciary, by proactively interpreting laws and enforcing fundamental rights, continues to play a crucial role in balancing state power and individual liberty within criminal jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments