A Critical Note on Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in addressing issues that are not explicitly covered by the law, or when it feels that the executive and legislative branches have failed to fulfill their constitutional duties. It involves judges taking an active role in shaping laws and influencing public policy, beyond their traditional role of interpreting laws.

Key Features of Judicial Activism

• Creative Interpretation: Judges may expand the interpretation of existing laws to meet the needs of society. For instance, in the Right to Privacy case (2017), the Supreme Court of India interpreted the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
• Public Interest Litigations (PILs): Judicial activism often takes shape through PILs, where the courts take up issues of public concern even if no specific party is involved. This has helped address issues like environmental protection, child labor, and women’s rights. For example, the Supreme Court’s intervention in the Narmada Dam case highlighted the rights of displaced people.
• Striking Down Unconstitutional Laws: Courts have the power to invalidate laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is an example where the Supreme Court interpreted the Basic Structure Doctrine to limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Criticism of Judicial Activism

• Overreach: Critics argue that judicial activism can lead to judicial overreach, where judges make decisions that are seen as the domain of the legislature or executive. For example, in some cases, the courts have been accused of stepping into areas like policy-making which should be left to elected officials.
• Undermining Democracy: Judicial activism is often viewed as undemocratic by critics because it may bypass the will of the people expressed through elected representatives. The courts, although not elected, can shape policies and laws.

Conclusion

Judicial activism has its advantages in protecting citizens’ rights and upholding constitutional values, but it also carries the risk of undermining democratic processes. A balance must be maintained to ensure that judicial intervention does not extend into the realms of the executive or legislature, but rather serves as a safeguard for justice and equality.