LLM Notes: Judicial Activism in India: A Catalyst for Change

 Judicial activism has become a defining feature of India's legal system, empowering the judiciary to play a proactive role in interpreting laws and protecting individual rights. This article examines the concept of judicial activism, its historical evolution, landmark cases, and the delicate balance it must maintain with the principles of judicial restraint.

Understanding Judicial Activism

Judicial activism refers to a philosophy where judges allow their personal views on public policy to influence their decisions. This approach enables the judiciary to intervene when legislative or executive actions threaten citizens’ rights or fail to address pressing societal issues. Key characteristics of judicial activism include:

·       Proactive Interpretation: Judges interpret laws in ways that uphold constitutional values, sometimes extending beyond the literal text.

·       Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Individuals or groups can file petitions on behalf of those unable to do so, broadening access to justice.

·       Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary actively safeguards individual liberties, especially in the face of legislative inaction.

Historical Evolution

Judicial activism in India has its roots in landmark cases that have shaped its trajectory:

·       Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the “basic structure” doctrine, ensuring that Parliament cannot alter fundamental features of the Constitution.

·       Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court issued guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace, showcasing the judiciary’s role in social reform.

The concept first developed in the United States, but in India, it gained momentum through the efforts of judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati.

Recent Landmark Cases

Judicial activism continues to shape Indian society through recent case laws:

·       Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the IPC, reinforcing individual rights and dignity.

·       Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017): Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

·       MC Mehta v. Union of India (2020): Addressed environmental concerns by issuing directives to combat air pollution in Delhi.

The Role of Judicial Review

The Indian Constitution does not strictly adhere to the doctrine of separation of powers. Instead, it demarcates spheres for the legislature, executive, and judiciary. The judiciary ensures that the other branches function within constitutional limits through judicial review, a powerful tool to restrain unconstitutional actions.

Judicial activism has expanded the scope of judicial review to include social and economic justice, making the Constitution a living document responsive to societal needs.

Reasons for Judicial Activism

Judicial activism in India has arisen mainly due to:

·       Ineffectiveness or inaction of the executive and legislature

·       Failure of these branches to deliver desired results

·       Violation of basic human rights

·       Misuse or abuse of constitutional provisions

Notable Cases of Judicial Activism

·       Golaknath & Ors vs State Of Punjab (1967): Supreme Court declared that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by the legislature.

·       Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Recognized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right.

·       Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983): The court took cognizance of custodial violence against women prisoners based on a journalist’s letter.

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint

While judicial activism involves interpreting the Constitution according to contemporary values, judicial restraint emphasizes that judges should not overstep their boundaries or encroach upon the functions of the legislature and executive. The power of judicial review is not unfettered, and judges must operate within constitutional limits.

·       Courts cannot direct legislatures to enact specific laws.

·       Policy matters are best left to the executive unless there is a law to enforce.

·       Overreaching by the judiciary can upset the constitutional balance.

Relevant Cases:

·       Suresh Seth vs. Indore Municipal Corporation (2006): The Supreme Court ruled it cannot direct the legislature to make specific enactments.

·       State of U.P. vs. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma (2021): Highlighted concerns about the judiciary crossing into executive functions.

Conclusion

Judicial activism has played a pivotal role in shaping India’s legal landscape by ensuring justice and safeguarding fundamental rights. While it empowers the judiciary to act in the public interest, it must be balanced with judicial restraint to maintain the separation of powers. As society evolves, the ongoing development of judicial activism will continue to influence governance and societal norms in India.

 Judicial Activism in India: Easy Explanation

What is Judicial Activism?

Imagine the judiciary (courts) as not just referees, but also players who can step in to make things right when the government isn't doing its job properly or is violating people's rights. That's judicial activism. It means judges take a proactive role, using their power to:

·       Interpret Laws Broadly: They don't just read the literal words, but look at the bigger picture of what the Constitution intends.

·       Help Those Who Can't Help Themselves: Through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), anyone can bring a case to court on behalf of those who can't.

·       Protect Rights: They strongly defend our fundamental rights.

Why Did It Start in India?

Basically, because sometimes the government (legislature and executive) doesn't do what it's supposed to:

·       Inaction: The government isn't solving problems or passing necessary laws.

·       Failure: They're not delivering the results people need.

·       Rights Violations: Basic human rights are being ignored or abused.

Key Cases to Remember

·       Kesavananda Bharati (1973): The "basic structure" of the Constitution can't be changed by Parliament. (Think of it as the foundation of a house – you can't remove it without the house collapsing).

·       Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at work. (Showed the court could make new rules when the government didn't).

·       Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality. (A big win for individual rights).

·       Right to Privacy Case (2017): Declared privacy a fundamental right.

How Does It Work?

India doesn't have a strict separation of powers. The judiciary makes sure the government stays within the rules of the Constitution through Judicial Review. This means they can check if laws or actions are unconstitutional.

Activism vs. Restraint: Finding the Balance

·       Activism: Judges actively interpret the Constitution to fit modern needs.

·       Restraint: Judges should stick to the original meaning and not interfere with the government's job.

It's a balancing act. Judges shouldn't overreach or try to make laws themselves.

Important Points

·       Courts can't tell the government what laws to make.

·       Policy decisions are usually for the government to make.

Conclusion

Judicial activism is a powerful tool that has helped protect rights and promote justice in India. However, it's important for judges to be careful and not overstep their boundaries.

 Here is a table connecting Judicial Activism to its Causes, Effects, and Related Concepts. This format will help you quickly review and memorize the key points for your exam.

Judicial Activism: Causes, Effects, and Related Concepts

Aspect	Details/Examples
Definition	Proactive role of judiciary in interpreting laws and protecting rights, especially when other branches fail.
Causes	- Inaction/ineffectiveness of Executive & Legislature - Failure to deliver results - Violation of rights - Misuse of constitutional provisions
Effects	- Protection of fundamental rights - Social reforms (e.g., workplace harassment guidelines) - Environmental protection - Accountability of government - Expansion of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Related Concepts	- Judicial Review - Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Overreach - Separation of Powers
Landmark Cases	- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Basic structure doctrine - Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Sexual harassment guidelines - Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality - Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Right to privacy - MC Mehta v. Union of India (2020): Environmental action - Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Right to speedy trial - Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983): Custodial violence
Limits/Balance	- Courts cannot make laws (Suresh Seth v. Indore Municipal Corp, 2006) - Should not overstep into executive/legislative domain (State of U.P. v. Manoj Kumar Sharma, 2021) - Need for judicial restraint to maintain separation of powers

 

Print Page