Roadmap for Answer Writing
-
Introduction
- Define judicial activism and its significance in the Indian context.
- Introduce the ‘basic structure’ doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala case (1973).
- State the thesis: Judicial activism has been instrumental in reinforcing democratic principles in India.
-
Body
- Protection of Fundamental Rights
- Discuss the expansive interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
- Fact: In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), the Court ruled that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity (Source: Supreme Court of India).
- Fact: The right to privacy was recognized as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017).
- Discuss the expansive interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
- Explain how PILs have democratized access to justice.
- Fact: The ruling in S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1981) allowed any citizen to file PILs, thus relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi.
- Explain how PILs have democratized access to justice.
- Environmental Jurisprudence
- Highlight the judiciary’s role in environmental protection linked to Article 21.
- Fact: The M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1986) case led to significant judicial interventions for pollution control in Delhi.
- Highlight the judiciary’s role in environmental protection linked to Article 21.
- Upholding Secularism and Social Justice
- Discuss the judiciary’s role in maintaining secularism and promoting social justice.
- Fact: The S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) case upheld the secular character of the Constitution (Source: Supreme Court of India).
- Fact: The Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case established guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace.
- Discuss the judiciary’s role in maintaining secularism and promoting social justice.
- Checks and Balances
- Explain how judicial review maintains checks on legislative and executive actions, ensuring accountability and the rule of law.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights
- Conclusion
- Summarize the key points, emphasizing the positive impact of judicial activism on Indian democracy.
- Acknowledge ongoing debates about the balance between judicial activism and restraint, underscoring the judiciary’s vital role in upholding democratic ideals.
Role of Judicial Activism in Achieving Democratic Ideals
Introduction of ‘Basic Structure’ Doctrine The judiciary in India has been instrumental in shaping the democratic framework, notably through the introduction of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This doctrine established that certain fundamental principles of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments, thus preserving the core values of democracy.
Judicial Activism and Democratic Ideals Judicial activism has played a pivotal role in ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and the accountability of public institutions. For instance, the Right to Privacy was recognized as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), reinforcing personal freedoms and autonomy.
In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court mandated time-bound investigations in corruption cases, thus promoting transparency and curbing misuse of power.
Recent Examples of Judicial Intervention The Supreme Court’s intervention in the 2018 Sabarimala case allowed the entry of women of all ages into the temple, reflecting a commitment to gender equality and challenging regressive practices.
Conclusion Judicial activism has been crucial in advancing democratic principles by safeguarding rights, enforcing accountability, and ensuring adherence to constitutional values. While it has faced criticism for overstepping, its role in maintaining democratic integrity and addressing social injustices underscores its importance in a thriving democracy.
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.