Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in protecting citizens’ rights. It encourages judges to interpret laws in a manner that promotes justice. This often involves stepping beyond traditional interpretations of the law. The concept first emerged in the United States in the late 1940s.
Historical Context
The term “judicial activism” was coined by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947. In India, it gained prominence through the efforts of justices such as V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati. Their work laid the foundation for a more engaged judiciary.
Methods of Judicial Activism
Judicial activism employs several methods, including:
- Judicial Review: The power to declare laws unconstitutional if they conflict with the Constitution.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Allows individuals to file petitions on behalf of those unable to do so.
- Constitutional Interpretation: Judges interpret the Constitution to uphold rights.
- International Statutes: Accessing international laws to ensure constitutional rights.
- Supervisory Powers: Higher courts oversee lower courts to maintain judicial integrity.
Significance of Judicial Activism
Judicial activism serves as important mechanism for upholding citizens’ rights. It acts as a check on the executive and legislative branches. When these branches fail, the judiciary provides a last resort for justice. Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Constitution of India empower the judiciary to protect constitutional rights.
Landmark Cases
Several landmark cases illustrate judicial activism in India:
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Established the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.
- Golaknath Case (1967): Declared that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.
- Hussainara Khatoon Case (1979): Affirmed the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right.
- Sheela Barse Case (1983): Addressed custodial violence against women.
- 2G Spectrum Case (2012): Cancelled telecom licenses due to flawed allocation processes.
Pros of Judicial Activism
Judicial activism has several advantages:
- Checks and Balances: It maintains equilibrium among government branches.
- Promotes Justice: Judges can innovate solutions in the absence of legislative action.
- Protects Rights: It safeguards citizens from government overreach.
- Public Participation: Encourages citizen involvement in legal processes through PILs.
Cons of Judicial Activism
There are also drawbacks associated with judicial activism:
- Judicial Overreach: Can lead to the judiciary exceeding its powers.
- Policy Interference: May disrupt the legislative process by encroaching on policy-making.
- Inconsistency: Judicial decisions may vary based on personal biases.
- Public Trust: Frequent interventions can erode faith in government institutions.
Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint
Judicial activism contrasts with judicial restraint.
- Judicial Activism: Involves proactive measures to uphold rights.
- Judicial Restraint: Encourages judges to limit their power and respect legislative authority.
Judicial restraint promotes stability and respects the separation of powers.
Judicial Overreach
Judicial overreach occurs when the judiciary exceeds its constitutional mandate. This can disrupt the balance of power among government branches. Critics argue that it undermines democracy. The judiciary defends its role by stating it acts when other branches fail.
Need for Judicial Activism
Judicial activism is often necessitated by:
- Government Inefficiency: When the executive and legislature fail to act.
- Corruption: Rampant corruption can lead to judicial intervention.
- Human Rights Violations: Protecting citizens’ rights becomes paramount.
- Public Interest: Urgent public issues demand judicial attention.
Trends in Judicial Activism
Judicial activism has evolved in response to societal needs. Courts have taken on a more active role in addressing issues like:
- Gender Equality: Cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan established guidelines for workplace safety for women.
- Environmental Protection: The judiciary has intervened in matters affecting public health and the environment.
Criticism of Judicial Activism
Judicial activism faces criticism for:
- Separation of Powers: Critics argue it undermines the balance between branches of government.
- Personal Bias: Concerns about judges allowing personal views to influence decisions.
- Legislative Role: Some believe judges should not create laws or policies.
