Judicial Activism in India
Judicial Activism in India
Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court and High Courts, in protecting citizens’ rights and ensuring justice, often by interpreting the Constitution in a broader sense or stepping into issues traditionally handled by the executive or legislature.
🔹 Meaning:
When courts go beyond merely resolving disputes brought before them and take initiative to enforce constitutional rights or address social issues.
The judiciary actively shapes laws and policies through its judgments.
It includes the expansion of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and judicial review powers.
🔹 How Judicial Activism Manifests in India:
Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
Courts entertain petitions filed by any public-spirited individual or NGO on behalf of the disadvantaged or marginalized sections of society.
PILs enable judicial intervention on issues like environmental protection, human rights, corruption, etc.
Expansive Interpretation of Fundamental Rights:
The courts have expanded the scope of fundamental rights (like Right to Life under Article 21) to include rights such as clean environment, privacy, livelihood, and education.
Judicial Review:
The power of courts to review laws and executive actions for their constitutionality and strike down those that violate the Constitution.
Monitoring Executive Actions:
Courts often issue directives and guidelines to the government to ensure proper implementation of laws and protect citizens’ rights.
🔹 Important Cases Demonstrating Judicial Activism:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
Established the “Basic Structure” doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
Expanded the interpretation of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21).
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
Recognized the right to livelihood as part of the Right to Life.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
Laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace.
MC Mehta Cases:
Addressed environmental protection and industrial pollution issues.
🔹 Advantages of Judicial Activism:
Protects the rights of weaker and marginalized sections.
Holds the government accountable.
Fills gaps where the legislature or executive may be inactive or negligent.
Promotes social justice and good governance.
🔹 Criticism of Judicial Activism:
Courts may overstep their authority, interfering with the functions of the legislature and executive.
Decisions may lack democratic legitimacy as judges are unelected.
Can lead to judicial overreach or “judicial dictatorship.”
🔹 Summary:
In India, judicial activism has played a vital role in safeguarding fundamental rights, promoting social justice, and strengthening democracy by ensuring the government acts within constitutional limits. However, it also raises questions about the proper balance between the judiciary and other branches of government.
RELATED Blog
0 comments