Judicial Activism

Judicial activism, a term frequently debated in legal and political circles, embodies the proactive role of courts in shaping public policy and interpreting the law beyond traditional boundaries. It denotes instances where judges assertively intervene in socio-political matters, often transcending their conventional roles of impartial arbiters.

Judicial activism means that judges actively work to protect people’s rights. This idea started in the USA. In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts can check if a law follows the constitution. If a law doesn’t match with the constitution, they can say it’s not allowed. But smaller courts can’t do this.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. is credited with coining the term “judicial activism” in 1947.
In India, the groundwork for judicial activism was established by Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, O. Chinnappa Reddy, and D.A. Desai.

Methods of Judicial Activism

In India, there are several methods of judicial activism:

1. Judicial review, which empowers the judiciary to interpret the constitution and invalidate any laws or orders from the legislature or executive that conflict with it.
2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL), where individuals without personal interest in the case can petition the court if there’s a significant public interest involved, rather than the aggrieved party filing the petition.
3. Constitutional interpretation.
4. Utilization of international statutes to safeguard constitutional rights.
5. Supervisory authority of higher courts over lower courts.

Example of Judicial Activism

• In 1979, the Supreme Court of India determined that undertrials in Bihar had already served a duration of imprisonment exceeding what they would have served if convicted.
• In the Golaknath case, the Supreme Court addressed whether amendments constitute laws and if Fundamental Rights are amenable to amendment. The court concluded that Fundamental Rights are not subject to parliamentary restriction per Article 13, and amending them would necessitate a new Constituent Assembly. It also stated that while Article 368 outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution, it does not grant Parliament the authority to amend it.
• The Kesavananda Bharati case established the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, the basic structure cannot be altered through constitutional amendments.
• In the 2G scam, the Supreme Court revoked 122 telecom licenses and spectrum allocations to 8 telecom companies due to flawed allocation processes.
• In 2018, the Supreme Court implemented a comprehensive ban on firecrackers in the Delhi-NCR region, with exceptions.
• The Supreme Court invoked terror laws against alleged money launderer Hasan Ali Khan.

Importance

• Judicial Activism establishes a system of checks and balances on other branches of government, encouraging innovative solutions when needed.
• It permits judges to exercise their discretion when laws fail to provide adequate balance.
• It fosters trust in judges and their insights into various issues, without altering their oath to administer justice.
• Judicial Activism empowers the judiciary to prevent the misuse of power by state governments, safeguarding the rights of residents.
• In situations of legislative deadlock, it facilitates swift resolution of issues that may otherwise be stalled in the legislative process.

Criticism

• Judicial activism curtails government functioning by intervening to prevent misuse or abuse of power.
• It breaches constitutional limits when it supersedes existing laws.
• Judicial opinions in one case can establish precedents for future rulings, impacting subsequent cases.
• There’s a risk of personal or selfish motives influencing judgments, potentially harming the public.
• Frequent court interventions may erode public trust in the government’s integrity, quality, and effectiveness.

Judicial Activism VS Judicial Restraint

• Judicial Activism entails the judiciary’s proactive role in safeguarding citizens’ legal and constitutional rights by using its authority to enforce or invalidate laws and regulations that either violate citizens’ rights or serve the greater good of society.
• Conversely, Judicial Restraint represents the opposite approach, where the judiciary is bound to adhere strictly to constitutional laws while carrying out its duties, promoting respect for the laws outlined in the constitution.
• Judicial Activism empowers the judiciary, allowing judges to address issues on their own initiative when they perceive violations of constitutional laws.
• In contrast, Judicial Restraint requires the judiciary to defer to the executive branch, which holds the exclusive authority to legislate for the public, thus limiting the judiciary’s role in lawmaking.

Why is Judicial Activism needed

• When the legislature fails to adapt legislation to contemporary needs and governmental agencies neglect their administrative duties, citizens’ confidence in constitutional values and democracy diminishes.
• In such circumstances, the judiciary intervenes in areas typically reserved for the legislature and executive, resulting in judicial legislation and a government influenced by the judiciary.
• If fundamental rights are violated by the government or any other entity, judges may intervene to improve citizens’ conditions.
• The judiciary’s most valuable asset and powerful tool is the trust it garners and the confidence it instills in people regarding its ability to deliver fair justice and maintain balance in disputes.

Judicial Restraint

• Judicial restraint contributes to maintaining equilibrium among the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches of government.
• It involves upholding laws enacted by the legislature.
• It demonstrates reverence for the division of governmental responsibilities.
• It permits the legislature and executive to fulfill their respective duties without judicial interference.
• It signifies respect for the democratic governance model by leaving policy matters to policymakers.

Judicial Overreach

Legislative and executive negligence or incapacity leads to what is termed as “judicial overreach,” which manifests in not only the formulation but also the implementation of laws resulting in weakness and imprudence. The Indian judiciary has faced criticism from various quarters, including legal scholars, lawyers, and even judges themselves, for engaging in excessive activism and overstepping its bounds.

In India, the judiciary has actively engaged in promoting social justice, notably through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), thereby restoring the rights of marginalized groups within society. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts have championed progressive social policies, earning widespread respect from citizens. However, it remains crucial in a democratic framework to uphold the principle of separation of powers and maintain the legitimacy of all three branches of government. This necessitates a functional and attentive executive and legislature. Simultaneously, the judiciary must exercise caution to avoid overstepping its bounds and intruding into areas beyond its purview.