Introduction
Judicial activism refers to the active role played by the judiciary, especially higher courts, in enforcing constitutional limits, interpreting laws, and sometimes even creating new legal standards in response to contemporary issues. It involves judges stepping beyond their traditional role of interpreting the law and actively shaping public policy by interpreting the Constitution in a progressive, sometimes expansive manner.
This concept has become central to democratic discourse in many countries, especially in India and the United States, where the judiciary plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law, protecting fundamental rights, and ensuring checks and balances among the three branches of government.
Origin and Evolution
The term “judicial activism” was first used by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947, referring to judges who are seen as willing to go beyond the text of the Constitution to deliver justice. While judicial activism has been evident in several legal systems, it gained prominence in India post the Emergency period (1975–77), when the judiciary reasserted itself to regain the trust of the public.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
Judicial activism is often contrasted with judicial restraint, which emphasizes the limited role of judges, suggesting that they should defer to the legislature and executive unless there is a clear constitutional violation. Judicial activists believe that courts must use their power to fill legislative gaps and respond to social injustices when other branches fail to act.
Judicial Activism in India
In India, judicial activism became especially prominent through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), allowing individuals or groups to approach the court on behalf of the marginalized or for broader public causes.
Landmark Cases:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, preventing Parliament from altering the Constitution’s core values.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at workplaces in the absence of legislation.
MC Mehta Cases: Addressed issues related to environmental protection and pollution control.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized homosexuality, showcasing the judiciary’s role in expanding individual rights.
Arguments in Favor of Judicial Activism
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: When legislative or executive branches fail to protect rights, courts step in as guardians of liberty.
- Accountability and Transparency: Judicial scrutiny compels other organs to act responsibly.
- Bridge Policy Gaps: Courts can fill legislative voids until proper laws are enacted.
- Voice for the Marginalized: Through PILs, judiciary gives a voice to those without access to power or representation.
Criticism of Judicial Activism
- Overreach: Critics argue that courts often cross the line into policymaking, which is not their domain.
- Undermining Democracy: Frequent intervention may erode the authority of the elected legislature.
- Subjectivity: Activist decisions may reflect personal ideologies rather than legal reasoning.
- Lack of Expertise: Courts may lack the technical expertise to decide complex socio-economic or policy issues
Judicial Overreach vs. Activism
While judicial activism aims to uphold justice and constitutional values, judicial overreach occurs when courts unnecessarily interfere in matters beyond their domain. This distinction is crucial: activism is welcome when it fills a vacuum; overreach is criticized when it creates an imbalance among the organs of government.
Conclusion
Judicial activism plays a vital role in a vibrant democracy, especially in countries where executive and legislative branches may be prone to inaction or corruption. However, it must be exercised with restraint and responsibility. The judiciary must balance its duty to uphold justice with respect for the separation of powers. When used judiciously, judicial activism strengthens democracy, fosters accountability, and upholds constitutional values.
