Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism refers to the active role played by the judiciary, particularly the higher courts like the Supreme Court and High Courts, in interpreting the Constitution and laws in a manner that promotes justice and upholds the rights of individuals, often stepping beyond the boundaries of strict legalism. This approach is typically seen when the judiciary steps in to protect public interest and human rights, especially in cases where the executive or legislative branches of the government are perceived to be inactive, ineffective, or unjust.

Key Features of Judicial Activism:

1. Interpretation Beyond Literal Meaning: Courts adopt a more expansive interpretation of laws and the Constitution, considering social, economic, and political contexts rather than sticking to a narrow or literal interpretation.
2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PILs have become a significant tool of judicial activism, allowing any citizen or organization to file a case in court for a public cause, even if they are not directly affected by the matter.
3. Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary often plays an active role in protecting the fundamental rights of individuals against state actions or inactions.
4. Checks and Balances: By taking an active role, the judiciary serves as a check on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that their actions conform to constitutional principles.

Examples of Judicial Activism in India:

1. Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Supreme Court laid down the “Basic Structure Doctrine,” stating that the Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution, ensuring a balance of power.
2. Vineet Narain Case (1997): The Court issued guidelines for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to function more independently, ensuring accountability and transparency.
3. MC Mehta Cases: A series of judgments related to environmental protection, particularly in the Ganga Pollution case, and vehicular pollution in Delhi.

Criticism of Judicial Activism:

• Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that judicial activism sometimes leads to “judicial overreach,” where the judiciary encroaches upon the domain of the executive and legislative branches.
• Democratic Concerns: Excessive activism might undermine the principle of separation of powers and the democratic process.

Significance:

Judicial activism is seen as a mechanism to advance justice, enforce the rule of law, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens, especially in situations where other branches of the government fail to act. It ensures that constitutional values are upheld and that governance remains accountable to the people.