Roadmap for Answer Writing 1. Introduction Define the Principle of Separation of Powers: Briefly explain the doctrine of separation of powers, which ensures the independence of the three branches of government: the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Mention how the Indian Constitution reflects ...
Model Answer Introduction The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the democratic framework of the country through its power of judicial review. Judicial activism, particularly the introduction of the 'basic structure' doctrine in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of KeralaRead more
Model Answer
Introduction
The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the democratic framework of the country through its power of judicial review. Judicial activism, particularly the introduction of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case (1973), has been essential in safeguarding democratic ideals.
Protection of Fundamental Rights
Judicial activism has significantly enhanced the protection of fundamental rights. For instance, Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that this right includes the right to live with dignity. Furthermore, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India (2017), the Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, demonstrating the judiciary’s proactive stance in evolving human rights jurisprudence.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Public Interest Litigation has emerged as a vital tool for judicial activism in India. The Supreme Court’s decision in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981) relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi, allowing any citizen to seek legal remedies in matters of public interest. This democratization of access to justice empowers marginalized voices and promotes accountability.
Environmental Jurisprudence
The judiciary has also actively protected the environment, linking it to the right to life under Article 21. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986), judicial interventions led to the closure of polluting industries in Delhi, exemplifying the judiciary’s commitment to environmental justice.
Upholding Secularism and Social Justice
Judicial activism has been crucial in upholding secularism, as seen in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994), and promoting social justice, exemplified by the Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, which established guidelines against workplace sexual harassment.
Conclusion
Overall, judicial activism has played a significant role in the evolution of Indian democracy by enforcing rights and ensuring accountability. While debates on the balance between judicial activism and restraint continue, the judiciary’s proactive role remains vital in protecting the democratic fabric of the nation.
See less
Model Answers Introduction: Separation of Powers in India The doctrine of separation of powers is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that each branch of government—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—operates independently without infringing upon the functions of the oRead more
Model Answers
Introduction: Separation of Powers in India
The doctrine of separation of powers is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that each branch of government—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—operates independently without infringing upon the functions of the others. Articles 122, 121, and 212 provide mechanisms to maintain this separation between the Legislature and Judiciary, with the aim to prevent judicial overreach.
Judicial Activism and Its Impact
Despite these constitutional provisions, judicial activism in India has often blurred the lines between the roles of the Legislature and the Judiciary. Judicial activism refers to instances where the judiciary intervenes in matters traditionally within the domain of the legislature, arguing that the courts have a role in addressing issues of public concern.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs)
Judicial activism in the form of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) has seen the judiciary stepping into legislative roles. For example, in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down sexual harassment guidelines for workplaces, assuming a legislative function until Parliament passed a law. This was viewed as the judiciary encroaching upon the legislative domain.
Law-making and Judicial Review
Another example of judicial activism is the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) case, where the Court limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, invoking the “basic structure” doctrine. Similarly, in striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, the Supreme Court intervened in a matter that could be considered the domain of the legislature.
Conclusion: Judicial Overreach and the Thin Line
While judicial activism can play a crucial role in enforcing constitutional principles and protecting citizens’ rights, it raises concerns about judicial overreach when the judiciary impinges upon legislative powers. Therefore, maintaining a balance is essential for upholding the principle of separation of powers in India.
Sources:
- Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)
- Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
- NJAC Case (2015)
See less