What is judicial activism?

Judicial activism refers to the approach taken by judges where they actively interpret laws and the Constitution to protect citizens' rights, advance societal justice, and sometimes even make decisions that influence social and legislative changes.

How does judicial activism differ from judicial restraint?

Judicial activism involves judges taking an active role in shaping societal changes through bold decisions, even if it means challenging legislative actions. On the other hand, judicial restraint is characterized by judges showing self-restraint, adhering closely to constitutional laws, and generally avoiding interference with legislative decisions.

What is the significance of judicial activism in India?

Judicial activism in India has played a crucial role in safeguarding citizens' rights, addressing legislative and executive failures, and bringing about reforms in various sectors. It has been instrumental in ensuring justice and upholding the principles of the Constitution.

What are the potential drawbacks of judicial activism?

Critics of judicial activism often point out that it can lead to perceived judicial overreach, undermine the separation of powers, and expose the judiciary to influences such as populism and media pressure, potentially compromising its independence.

Judicial Activism 1970, Meaning, Origin, Criticism and Differences

Table of Contents

Judicial Activism: In the United States, judicial activism first appeared in 1947. Since then, it’s been noticed in India as well, particularly during the Emergency. For those hoping to pass the IAS Exam, it is essential to comprehend the functions of the judiciary and the phenomenon of judicial activism. This article tries to introduce judicial activism by examining its different forms, importance, as well as benefits and drawbacks.

Judicial Activism Meaning

Judicial activism refers to when courts go beyond interpreting laws and actively shape public policy and social issues. It involves making decisions that expand legal interpretations, uphold rights, and address societal concerns. While seen as necessary by some for justice, others argue it can encroach on the roles of other branches of government

Judicial Activism denotes court decisions influenced by judges’ personal and political considerations.
Judicial activism embodies the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding citizens’ rights and advancing societal justice. It signifies the judiciary’s assertive engagement in compelling the legislature and executive to fulfill their constitutional obligations.
Judicial activism, akin to “judicial dynamism,” propels the judiciary to drive the legislature and executive to fulfill their constitutional mandates, opposing “judicial restraint,” a concept involving judicial self-control.
Judicial activism involves judges departing from established precedents to champion progressive social policies. Such decisions may advocate social engineering, sometimes intruding into legislative and executive domains.

Origin of Judicial Activism

Emerging from the British unwritten constitution during Stuart’s era (1603-1688), judicial activism developed alongside judicial review.
In 1610, Justice Coke’s activism marked the first acknowledgment of judicial review in Britain, empowering the judiciary to nullify laws conflicting with common law principles and reason.

Origin of Judicial Activism in India

The doctrine of judicial activism took root in India during the mid-1970s. Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, O. Chinnappa Reddy, and D.A. Desai pioneered its establishment within the nation’s legal framework.

Criticism faced by Judicial Activism

The practice of Judicial Activism has sparked debate over the balance of power between Parliament and the Supreme Court. It has the potential to disrupt the delicate equilibrium of the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.

Methods of Judicial Activism in India

Judicial Activism in India refers to the authority vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts to declare laws as unconstitutional and void if they are contradictory or inconsistent with one or more provisions of the constitution. This prerogative is not accessible to lower courts, which do not possess the capability to assess the legality of laws or carry out judicial reviews.

Key characteristics of judicial activism in India include:

Expansive Interpretation: Activist courts tend to interpret constitutional provisions and laws broadly to uphold fundamental rights and promote justice, equality, and social welfare.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Courts have allowed public interest groups and individuals to file cases on behalf of marginalized or disadvantaged groups, addressing issues related to environment, health, education, and other socio-economic concerns.
Judicial Review: Activist courts actively review legislative and executive actions to ensure they adhere to the constitution and the principles of justice.
Policy Formulation: In some instances, courts have formulated guidelines and policies when they find a legislative or executive void, especially in areas concerning human rights and public welfare.
Social Justice: Activist courts aim to rectify historical injustices and systemic inequalities through their judgments and directions.
Interbranch Dynamics: Judicial activism sometimes involves the court intervening in matters that traditionally fall within the domain of the legislative or executive branches.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary plays a significant role in safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights against any infringement, even if it requires challenging laws or policies.
Corrective Measures: Courts may direct the government to take specific actions to address issues such as corruption, environmental degradation, and social disparities.

Shifting Dynamics of Judicial Activism

Post-independence, the first decade witnessed subdued judicial activism while the executive and legislative arms held sway.
The 1970s marked the Supreme Court’s emergence with a constitutional perspective.

Keshavananda Bharti Case: Defining Moment

In a pivotal move before the emergency, the apex court proclaimed in the Keshavananda Bharti case that the constitution’s basic structure was beyond executive alteration.
Although the emergency occurred, this stance bolstered judicial activism.

Golaknath Case: Guarding Fundamental Rights

In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court asserted that Fundamental Rights in Part 3 were unamendable by legislative bodies. This legal assertion reinforced judicial activism’s prominence.

Landmark Instances of Judicial Activism

Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar: Highlighting dire conditions of undertrial prisoners, the court recognized speedy trial as a fundamental right, ensuring free legal aid and justice for inmates.
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra: Responding to the journalist’s plea on custodial violence, the court treated the letter as a writ petition, issuing necessary guidelines for women prisoners’ welfare.
Lodha Committee and BCCI: Lodha Panel aimed to reform BCCI amid corruption allegations. Its recommendations were deemed overreach due to BCCI’s independent status.

Rationale Behind Judicial Activism

Crisis of Responsible Government: When Legislature and Executive falter, trust in the Constitution diminishes, compelling judicial intervention.
Citizen Expectations: Citizens rely on the judiciary for safeguarding rights, creating pressure for judicial aid.
Judicial Enthusiasm: Judges engage in societal reforms, propelling Public Interest Litigation and broadening ‘Locus Standi’.
Legislative Gaps: Unlegislated areas prompt judicial legislation to fulfill evolving social needs.
Constitutional Scope: The Indian Constitution empowers the judiciary to legislate and play an active role.
Legislature Failures: Weak legislature leads judiciary to intervene.
Protecting Basic Rights: Court intervention safeguards citizens’ rights, addressing failures in administration.
Executive Misuse: Executive misusing courts for political motives necessitates judicial involvement.
Judicial Vulnerabilities: Courts susceptible to weaknesses like populism, media influence, and publicity-seeking.

Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Aspect	Judicial Activism	Judicial Restraint
Definition	The judiciary actively enforces rights, even if it requires striking down laws that infringe on citizens’ rights or benefit society.	The judiciary exercises self-restraint and abides by constitutional laws when executing its duties.
Approach	Proactive in addressing societal issues and rights concerns through judicial intervention.	Reactive, preferring to let legislative and executive branches take the lead in decision-making.
Relationship with Laws	More willing to interpret laws expansively to protect rights and address societal concerns.	Constrained by a strict interpretation of laws and constitution, avoiding active involvement.
Scope of Power	Exercises authority to take up cases suo-motu to prevent violations of constitutional laws.	Largely defers to the executive and legislative branches, respecting their role in lawmaking.
Executive Relationship	Can lead to tension with the executive branch due to perceived judicial overreach.	Generally maintains a cooperative relationship with the executive, avoiding conflicts.
Legislative Relationship	May challenge legislative decisions that appear to violate rights or constitutional principles.	Avoids interference with legislative decisions and respects their authority to legislate.
Decision-making Approach	More inclined towards shaping societal changes through bold decisions.	Focuses on maintaining the status quo and preserving established norms.

Distinguishing Between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism

Defining the Relationship

Closely Linked Concepts: The notions of judicial review and judicial activism share proximity. Yet, they exhibit notable distinctions, outlined below.

Inherent Activism in Judicial Review

The foundation of judicial activism lies within judicial review. Judicial review empowers courts to uphold the Constitution and invalidate laws conflicting with it. Activism reinforces the proper functioning of other governmental organs.

Emergence of “Judicial Activism”

“Judicial activism” emerged in the 20th century to denote judicial legislation, where judges actively shape law. While lacking a standardized definition, it emphasizes the significance of robust judicial review for safeguarding core rights.

Expanded Scope of Judicial Review

The broader application of locus standi, exemplified by Public Interest Litigation (PIL), has extended courts’ jurisdiction in judicial review. This broadened role has been termed “judicial activism” by critics skeptical of the judiciary’s expanded role.