Judicial activism refers to the tendency of courts to actively shape the law and public policy by going beyond the narrow bounds of traditional judicial review and taking a proactive role in addressing social, economic, and political issues. In India, the judiciary has been increasingly proactive in addressing various social issues, expanding rights, and checking the excesses of the executive and legislative branches.

Manifestations of Judicial Activism in India:

Landmark Cases:
Shah Bano Case (1985): The Supreme Court recognized a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance from her husband, challenging traditional Muslim law.
Vishaka Case (1997): The Court directed employers to prevent sexual harassment at workplace, introducing the concept of sexual harassment as a form of gender-based discrimination.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
The courts have used PILs to address issues like pollution, poverty, and human rights violations, often taking suo moto cognizance of these issues.
Constitutional Amendments:
The courts have played a crucial role in shaping constitutional amendments, such as the 93rd Amendment (2006), which introduced reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in private educational institutions.
Checks on Executive Power:
The courts have limited executive powers, such as in cases like ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla (1976), where the Court held that even during emergency periods, fundamental rights cannot be suspended.
Protection of Minority Rights:
The courts have protected minority rights, such as in the Shah Bano case, where the Supreme Court recognized a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance despite the opposition from religious groups.
Comparison with Other Democratic Systems:

United States:
The US Supreme Court is known for its judicial restraint, often deferring to legislative and executive branches. However, it has also taken a more activist stance in cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973).
United Kingdom:
The UK Supreme Court has taken a more restrained approach to judicial activism, focusing on interpreting statutory law rather than creating new rights or policies.
Canada:
The Canadian Supreme Court has been more willing to take a proactive role in addressing social issues, such as recognizing same-sex marriage in 2005.
Indian Judiciary’s Activism:

Strengths: Indian courts have played a significant role in addressing social injustices, expanding rights, and checking executive excesses.
Weaknesses: Critics argue that judicial activism can lead to over-reach and undermine the separation of powers.
Challenges:

Over-reach: Courts may overstep their constitutional boundaries and encroach upon legislative or executive functions.
Lack of expertise: Courts may lack expertise in certain areas, leading to incorrect or incomplete decisions.
Delays: PILs and other types of cases can lead to lengthy delays, affecting the effective administration of justice.
Conclusion:

Indian courts have taken a proactive role in addressing social issues, expanding rights, and checking executive excesses through various means, including PILs and landmark cases. While judicial activism can be beneficial in promoting justice and equality, it is essential for courts to balance their powers with restraint and caution to ensure that they do not overstep their constitutional boundaries. A balanced approach can help the Indian judiciary continue to play a vital role in shaping public policy while maintaining its integrity and credibility.