Give three reasons why judicial activism is bad. (125 Words) [UPPSC 2023]
Judicial Activism: Concept and Impact on Executive-Judiciary Relationship in India Concept of Judicial Activism: Judicial Activism refers to the judiciary's proactive role in addressing social injustices, safeguarding fundamental rights, and ensuring the implementation of laws beyond mere interpretaRead more
Judicial Activism: Concept and Impact on Executive-Judiciary Relationship in India
Concept of Judicial Activism:
Judicial Activism refers to the judiciary’s proactive role in addressing social injustices, safeguarding fundamental rights, and ensuring the implementation of laws beyond mere interpretation. It involves courts taking an active stance in policy issues and legislative matters.
Impact on Executive-Judiciary Relationship:
- Empowerment of Judiciary: Judicial activism has strengthened the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values, as seen in the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), which established the basic structure doctrine.
- Tension with Executive: It has led to tensions between the judiciary and executive, with instances like the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Aadhar case (2018) affecting executive policies.
- Accountability: While it has promoted accountability and transparency, it sometimes results in judicial overreach, challenging executive decisions and policies.
In summary, judicial activism in India has enhanced judicial authority but also created complex dynamics with the executive branch.
See less
Demerits of Judicial Activism 1. Overstepping of Judicial Boundaries: Judicial activism often leads to judicial overreach, where courts encroach upon the domain of the executive and legislature. This can disrupt the separation of powers. For example, in the Vineet Narain case (1997), the Supreme CouRead more
Demerits of Judicial Activism
1. Overstepping of Judicial Boundaries: Judicial activism often leads to judicial overreach, where courts encroach upon the domain of the executive and legislature. This can disrupt the separation of powers. For example, in the Vineet Narain case (1997), the Supreme Court’s directions on police reforms extended into areas traditionally managed by the executive.
2. Erosion of Democratic Processes: Excessive judicial intervention can undermine democratic processes by overriding the decisions of elected representatives. The Supreme Court’s involvement in environmental regulations, such as in the Ganga pollution case, though well-intentioned, sometimes challenges legislative prerogatives and slows down the legislative process.
3. Unpredictability and Inconsistency: Judicial activism can lead to inconsistent judgments and unpredictable legal outcomes, creating uncertainty in the legal system. For instance, the frequent changes in judicial interpretations of laws, such as those related to privacy and data protection, can lead to confusion and affect long-term policy planning.
Conclusion: While judicial activism aims to address issues swiftly, it may lead to challenges in maintaining the balance of power, democratic integrity, and legal consistency.
See less