The Oxford Dictionary presents the defination of non violence as the absence of any tool or condition of violence at the physical level. However, the depths of non violence are deeply entrenched in the social, cultural, political, psychological and spiritual existence of human beings.

STRANDS OF NON – VIOLENCE:

1. At a social level, Mahatma Gandhi presented non violence as a constructive and active tool to resist colonial powers by forging unity in oeaceful protests, like the Non Cooperation Movement in India (1930s).
2. At the cultural level, the Dalai Lama argues that non violence is the root essence of all cultural values which ultimately gravitate towards the idea of peaceful coexistence.
3. At the spiritual level, Ramakrishna Paramhansa highlighted that non violence is the very nature of human consciousness, that only feeds into truth and peace.
4. At the psychological level, Viktor Frankl argues that non violence is not mere absene of violenc but the presence of harmonios thoughts and ideas.

BASIS OF MORAL VALUES:

Martin Luther King argues that non violence in reality harbours the core of other moral virtues, like –

1. Peaceful coexistence with diverse communities of people. For instance, India has more than 1600 linguistic groups, 16 religious communities, etc living in harmony.
2. Truthfulness, as Gandhi highlighted via his strive for Satyagraha in garb of non violent national movement.
3. Prosperity is promoted with a rich emphasis on living within the harmony of diversity.
4. Acceptance and acknowledgement of diversity is a direct result of non violence as a virture.
5. Growth and development is promoted at the individual ad societal level as non violence is considered a primary virtue.

In essence, the absence of non violence as a core virtue leads to devastaing effects. The ongoing Israel – Palestine war is the testimonony to the negative and far fetched impact of violence as a virtue and political tactic. Hence, the need of the hour is to lay the foundation of individuals and countries on the basis of non violence and peace.

Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in order to safeguard the rights of citizens. In order to assure the safeguarding of rights, the judiciary at times over breaches its jurisdiction and might intrude into the arena of legislature or exectuive, hence threatening the sanctity of separation of power.

Further, when the judiciary goes overboard the judicial activism, and outrightly intrude the separation of power doctrine, then it is called Judicial Overreach.

CASE STUDIES:

1. Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) – the judiciary prescribed guidelines to prevent sexual offence at workplaces, taking the position of legislature.
2. Sheela Barse vs. State of Maharashtra (1983) – the Supreme Court treated a letter on custodial violence against women as a writ petition.
3. G. Satyanarayan Case (2004) – added regulations specific to the labour law, ignoring the jurisdiction of the legislature.

CONCERNS:

1. Breaching the Democratic principles by neglecting the position of other branches of the Constitution.
2. Lack of accountability with the judiciary that encoraches the role of legislature nad executive.
3. Overburdens the judiciary with case loads. As per the Vidhi Legal Center, around 51 million cases in totality are pending in India.
4. Delayed Justice as over emphasism on activism will strech the time period for case proceddings.
5. Violation of separation of power doctrine and threatening the entire democratic basis of checks and balances among the branches.

WAY FORWARD:

The Supreme Courtin the 2023 Kerala Land sale case categorically argued that “unwarranted judicial activism and overreach should be avoided by courts at all times.”