Give three reasons why judicial activism is bad. (125 Words) [UPPSC 2023]
Resources & Suggestions
Mains Answer Writing Latest Articles
On: February 22, 2025
Comments:
0
Indo-US Relation: Areas of Cooperation & Conflicts
Key Areas: Defense, technology, trade, energy, and regional cooperation. Key Areas of Cooperation 1. Defense and Security Transition from buyer-seller to co-production and technology sharing. India as a Major Defense Partner (MDP) and inclusion in STA-1. Access to advanced technologies, ...
On: February 22, 2025
Comments:
0
भारत-अमेरिका संबंध: सहयोग और संघर्ष के क्षेत्र
मुख्य विषय: भारत-अमेरिका संबंधों की मजबूती, विशेषकर रक्षा, प्रौद्योगिकी और क्षेत्रीय सहयोग में प्रगति। सहयोग के प्रमुख क्षेत्र 1. रक्षा एवं सुरक्षा सहयोग भारत और अमेरिका के बीच रक्षा संबंधों का विस्तार। प्रमुख रक्षा साझेदार (MDP) का दर्जा और STA-1 ...
On: February 22, 2025
Comments:
0
India’s Disaster Management
The article discusses the growing tensions between the Centre and states regarding disaster relief funding in India. It emphasizes the need for a transparent and equitable disaster management framework. Key Disaster Threats India Faces Increasing Frequency of Extreme Weather Events ...
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.
Judicial activism, while promoting justice and protecting rights, has its demerits.
1. **Judicial Overreach**: It can lead to an imbalance of power among branches of government, with courts potentially encroaching on legislative and executive domains. This may undermine the principle of separation of powers.
2. **Inconsistency**: Judicial activism often results in varying interpretations of laws, leading to inconsistent rulings. This unpredictability can create confusion and undermine the rule of law, making it difficult for individuals and authorities to understand legal standards.
3. **Political Bias**: Activist judges may impose their personal beliefs, which can result in decisions influenced by political or social agendas rather than strict legal interpretations. This perception can erode public trust in the judiciary, raising concerns about impartiality and fairness in the justice system.