Judicial activism in India has emerged as a powerful force in the legal landscape, enabling the judiciary to play a proactive role in interpreting laws and safeguarding individual rights. This article explores the concept of judicial activism, its historical context, and recent landmark case laws that exemplify its significance in promoting justice and accountability.
What is Judicial Activism?
Judicial activism can be defined as a philosophy of judicial decision-making where judges allow their personal views about public policy to influence their rulings. This approach empowers the judiciary to intervene in legislative and executive actions, particularly when these branches fail to protect citizens' rights or when existing laws do not adequately address pressing societal issues. Key features of judicial activism include:
- Proactive Interpretation: Judges interpret laws in ways that align with constitutional values, often extending beyond the literal text.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): This mechanism allows individuals or groups to file petitions on behalf of those unable to do so, thereby expanding access to justice.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary actively safeguards individual liberties, especially when legislative inaction threatens these rights.
Historical Context
The roots of judicial activism in India can be traced back to landmark cases that have shaped its trajectory. Notable examples include:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This case introduced the "basic structure" doctrine, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament. It marked a significant moment for judicial activism by establishing checks on legislative power.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, demonstrating how judicial intervention can lead to meaningful social reforms.
Recent Landmark Case Laws
Recent case laws illustrate the continuing relevance and impact of judicial activism in India:
1. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, reinforcing individual rights and dignity. This landmark ruling exemplified the judiciary's role in advancing social justice.
2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): In this case, the court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, emphasizing personal autonomy and privacy against state interference.
3. MC Mehta v. Union of India (2020) : Responding to severe air pollution in Delhi, the Supreme Court issued directives for immediate action, including vehicle rationing measures and restrictions on firecracker sales during festivals. This case highlighted judicial activism in addressing environmental concerns.
Functioning of three organs of State viz Executive, legislature and judiciary is essential for effective democracy.
The Indian Constitution do not recognize the doctrine of separation ofwers in its absolute rigidity. Legislature, executive and judiciary have to function within their own spheres demarcated under the Constitution.
Judiciary has power to ensure that the Legislature and executive, the two main organs of State function within the constitutional limits. Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the legislature and executive.
The Constitution of India is a living document. The judiciary has duty to ensure that it remains responsive to the needs of the society. Throughout history the judiciary has demonstrated a creative approach & played proactive role to protect and expand the fundamental rights of the citizens.
The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the concept of social and economic justice.
Background.
Judicial Activism first originated and developed in the USA. In India,the foundation of Judicial Activism was laid down by Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N Bhagwati,
Why judicial Activism: Judicial Activism has arisen mainly due to:
1. Ineffectiveness and in-activeness of the Executive and Legislatures .
2. Failure of the Executive and Legislatures to deliver the desired results.
3. Violation of basic human rights.
4. Misuse and abuse of some Constitutional provisions .
Famous cases of Judicial Activism include -
1. Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab (1967)
The Supreme Court declared that Fundamental Rights are immune and cannot be amended by the legislative assembly.
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
-
The inhuman and barbaric conditions of the undertrial prisoners reflected through the articles published in the newspaper. The Apex court held that Under article 21 of Constitution, the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right.
4. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983)
A letter by Journalist, addressed to the Supreme Court addressing the custodial violence of women prisoners in Jail. The court treated that letter as a writ petition and took cognizance of that matter.
Judicial Activism VS Judicial Restraint
Judicial activism mean interpretation of the constitution according to contemporary values and conditions.
Judicial overreach means where Judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. The Indian Judiciary today, very often is criticized for `over-reach' and “encroachment into the domain of the other two organs'.
1. The power / duty of judicial review bestowed upon the judiciary is not unfettered; it comes within the conception of judicial restraint.
2. Judges are expected to interpret any law or provision of the Constitution as per the limits laid down by the Constitution.
3. In the name of judicial activism, Judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction.
4. Judges must exercise judicial restraint and must not encroach into the executive or legislative domain.
5. The constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise or sermonize the legislative or executive in matters which under the constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided they do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.
6. Courts have to be careful to see that they do not overstep their limits. Policy matters, fiscal, educational or otherwise are best left to the judgment of the executive. If there is a law, Judges can certainly enforce it, but Judges cannot create a law and seek to enforce it.
7.Unfortunately, some courts are still violating the high constitutional principle of separation of powers. Judicial activism does not become judicial adventurism. Therefore the courts must act with caution and proper restraint.
Caselaws:
1. Suresh Seth vs. Indore Municipal Corporation 2006
In Suresh Seth vs. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation AIR2006SC767, a three judge bench of the Court observed that, “this Court cannot issue any direction to the Legislature to make any particular kind of enactment. Under our constitutional scheme Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power or authority to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation.”
2. State of U.P. vs. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma 2021
“A practice has developed in certain High Courts to call officers at the drop of a hat and to exert direct or indirect pressure. The line of separation of powers between judiciary and executive is sought to be crossed by summoning the officers and in a way pressuring them to pass an order as per the whims and fancies of the Court”
Conclusion
Judicial activism has played a crucial role in shaping India's legal landscape by ensuring that justice is accessible and that fundamental rights are protected. While it empowers the judiciary to act decisively in matters of public interest, it also raises important discussions about balancing judicial intervention with legislative authority. As society continues to evolve, the ongoing development of judicial activism will undoubtedly influence governance and societal norms in India today and in the future.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment