JUDICIAL ACTIVISM – It refers to proactive and assertive role played by the judiciary to force the organs of the state to discharge their functions towards people in a right way. This move involve sometimes the judiciary itself taking up the job of legislative or executive or it may also involve the judiciary interpreting the Constitution in innovative ways so as to strengthen the value of democracy and Constitution.

PIL (Public Interest Litigation) has emerged as a great facilitator of judicial activism and is therefore called the backbone of judicial activism. Judicial activism draws it’s legitimacy from the power of judicial review. However, judicial activism is a weak measure only in short-run, if carried for long or frequently it can disturb people’s faith in other two pillars of democracy (legislature and executive). Eventually destroying the balance among the three organs of government. It may cause judiciary to assume access power at the cost of executive and legislature wing of the state. Activism should be used as the last resort when all other measures and attempts to maintain rule of law have failed. Supreme Court itself said in 2007 that judiciary in the name of judicial activism should not take up the role of executive or legislature because judiciary is neither a representative body like legislature nor is expert in running the administration of the country. It’s functions must be limited to enforceability of existing laws.

JUDICIAL OVEREACH – In India, judiciary plays an important role in the lives of people. Supreme Court of India also known as the apex court helps in shaping the public policy and upholding individual rights. Judicial overreach refers to a situation when the apex court starts interfering in the other two organs of the government i.e. legislature and executive. However, many times concerns have been raised about the judiciary over-exercising its role. Judicial overeach undermines the separation of powers. Overinterference of judiciary can create an imbalance of power. It also the delays the delivery system and can sometimes overburden the judiciary and can cause burnout of judges by placing more responsibilities on them. Judicial overreach is also under criticism because there can be lack of expertise among the judges on some complex policy issues. Judicial overreach can lead to mistrust among the people if the courts overstep their authority, thus hampering the public confidence.

Hence, it becomes imperative for the judiciary to strike a balance. Judiciary acts as the custodian of Constitution and the primary protector of fundamental rights, but it must also respect the boundaries of it’s power.