Judicial Activism in India: A Recent Phenomenon

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in influencing public policy, interpreting the Constitution, and ensuring the enforcement of fundamental rights. In the Indian context, judicial activism has become a significant aspect of governance in recent decades. While the judiciary has always had an essential role in safeguarding the rights of citizens, its role has expanded in recent years, leading to debates on whether it is a positive or negative trend.

1. What is Judicial Activism

Judicial activism refers to instances where judges make rulings based on their personal views, interpreting laws more broadly than usual or taking actions that influence the executive or legislative branches of government. This can involve striking down laws, issuing directions to the government, or even shaping public policy through court orders.

2. Judicial Activism in India: The Recent Shift

In India, judicial activism has gained prominence since the 1980s, particularly under the leadership of some Chief Justices. It started with an expanded interpretation of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. Landmark cases like Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (1973), and Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) are examples where the judiciary has stepped beyond its traditional role to address issues like human rights, women’s rights, and environmental protection.

3. Arguments in Favor of Judicial Activism

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, especially in situations where the executive or legislature has failed. For example, the Kesavananda Bharati case helped solidify the basic structure doctrine, which protects the core principles of the Constitution.
• Addressing Legislative Failures: Judicial activism has sometimes been necessary when the legislature fails to address critical issues. The landmark Vishakha case, which mandated guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace, came about due to the lack of specific laws in place.
• Ensuring Accountability: Through its intervention, the judiciary has been able to hold the executive accountable for its actions. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy case is a classic example where the judiciary directed the government to ensure proper compensation for victims despite government inaction.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Judicial activism, particularly through PILs, has allowed the common people to approach the courts for matters of public interest. This has led to the enforcement of environmental laws, the protection of the rights of marginalized communities, and access to social justice.

4. Arguments Against Judicial Activism

• Overstepping Judicial Boundaries: Critics argue that judicial activism often leads to judges overstepping their constitutional boundaries and assuming legislative functions. Some believe that courts should not interfere in matters that are the responsibility of the legislature or executive, as it disturbs the balance of power.
• Lack of Expertise: While the judiciary is expected to interpret laws, critics argue that judges may not have the expertise to make decisions on complex policy issues. For example, decisions on economic policies or international relations, which require detailed knowledge, may be better handled by elected representatives.
• Undermining Democracy: By making policy decisions, judicial activism may undermine the democratic process. Elected representatives in the legislature are accountable to the people, while judges are not. This disconnect can lead to the imposition of decisions that may not reflect the will of the people.
• Inconsistent Rulings: Judicial activism has sometimes led to inconsistent rulings, which can create confusion. For example, in some cases, the courts have given directions on social issues, but the implementation of these directions has been slow or ineffective.

5. Conclusion: 

Judicial activism, while necessary in some cases, requires a delicate balance. It should not interfere in the areas reserved for the legislature or executive unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution or fundamental rights. The judiciary’s role is vital in holding the government accountable and protecting the rights of citizens. However, it must avoid overstepping its mandate and ensure that its interventions are in line with the principles of democracy and the separation of powers.