Understanding the Concept of Judicial Activism: Navigating the Boundaries of Judicial Review and Social Change

Read 5 minutes

Judicial activism in India refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing laws in a way that brings about social and political change. It often involves judges stepping beyond their traditional role of adjudication, influencing public policy and addressing societal issues. While judicial activism has been instrumental in shaping India’s legal and political landscape, it has also sparked debates about the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. This blog explores the concept, evolution, landmark cases, and implications of judicial activism in India, including its role in public interest litigation (PIL) and social change.

Judicial Activism Defined

Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as: “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usually with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent”.

Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy where judges use their personal views on public policy to guide their decisions, often resulting in the discovery of constitutional violations and a willingness to ignore precedent. This approach can lead to significant changes in legal and social policy.

Constitutional Powers of the Judiciary

Judicial activism occurs when courts exercise their power to review State actions. Key constitutional provisions empowering the judiciary include:

Article 13: Allows for judicial review of any legislative, executive, or administrative action that contravenes the Constitution. Judicial review is considered a basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
Article 32: Grants individuals the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has emphasized that this right is integral to the Constitution’s basic structure, as effective remedies are essential for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights. This jurisdiction is broader than that under Article 32, as it includes the power to issue orders for any legal rights.
Article 227: Provides High Courts with supervisory control over subordinate courts, special courts, and tribunals.
Article 136: Allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order from any court or tribunal. This power is discretionary and should be exercised with caution.
Article 142: Enables the Supreme Court to pass orders for doing complete justice in any pending matter. This power allows for judicial legislation in the absence of appropriate laws by Parliament.

Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation

The evolution from locus standi to public interest litigation (PIL) has made the judicial process more participatory and democratic. Key aspects include:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A tool for addressing grievances of disadvantaged groups and ensuring access to justice. It allows individuals or groups to file petitions in court on behalf of those who cannot approach the court themselves.
Epistolary Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has used this to address human rights violations based on letters or media reports. Cases like Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar and Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra demonstrate the Court’s proactive role in addressing issues of public concern.
Innovative Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court has recognized fundamental rights, such as the right to a healthy environment and the right to education, and has enforced these rights through PILs and directives.

Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Intervention

Judicial activism often leads to debates about the boundaries of judicial power. Instances of judicial intervention, such as the Supreme Court’s decisions on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and directives to the government on various issues, have sparked discussions about the appropriate role of the judiciary.

Criticism of Judicial Overreach: The Parliament and other critics argue that judicial activism sometimes encroaches on legislative and executive functions. Cases like Prakash Singh v. Union of India and Vineet Narain v. Union of India illustrate instances where the judiciary issued directives to improve transparency and accountability in government institutions.
Judicial Self-Restraint: There are calls for the judiciary to self-regulate and avoid overstepping its constitutional role. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged the importance of respecting the separation of powers and avoiding encroachment on the roles of the legislature and executive.

Judicial activism in India represents the judiciary’s proactive role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring justice, especially for disadvantaged groups. While it has led to significant legal and social reforms, it also raises questions about the boundaries of judicial power. The balance between activism and intervention remains a dynamic and ongoing aspect of India’s legal and political landscape.

Judicial activism has played a crucial role in shaping India’s legal and social framework, particularly through its impact on social justice and public policy. While it has led to significant reforms in areas like human rights, environmental protection, and governance, its scope continues to be a subject of debate. As the Indian judiciary maintains its role in upholding the Constitution, balancing judicial activism with democratic principles remains essential for ensuring the proper functioning of India’s democratic system.

If you wish to learn more about Judicial activism you can refer to our notes and read this research paper.

2. How to remember important caselaws and sections during exams.

3. Mastering the Art of Staying updated for Judiciary Aspirants

Frequently Asked Questions

What is judicial activism in India?

Judicial activism occurs when courts go beyond their traditional role of interpreting the law to take an active role in shaping public policy. This includes initiating actions in the public interest, influencing social change, and addressing issues that the legislative or executive branches may not resolve promptly.

How has judicial activism evolved in India?

Judicial activism in India began gaining momentum in the 1970s, especially after the Emergency period (1975-77), when courts took a more assertive stance. Over time, it has played a key role in promoting human rights, environmental justice, and social reforms, particularly through Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

What are some landmark cases of judicial activism in India?

Some key examples include:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the “basic structure doctrine,” marking a landmark in constitutional interpretation.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Broadened the scope of Article 21, expanding the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty.

How does judicial activism relate to judicial review in India?

Judicial review allows courts to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. Judicial activism extends this review by encouraging courts to interpret laws expansively, often in a manner that influences legislative or executive action. The difference lies in the scope—judicial review is a more restrained function, whereas judicial activism involves a proactive, creative approach.