Judicial Activism in India [UGC-NTA NET Political Science Notes]
Judicial activism in India is phenomenon that shapes the relationship between the judiciary and other branches of government. It involves the judiciary taking an active role in interpreting laws and the Constitution to expand rights and liberties. This approach often contrasts with judicial restraint, wherein courts typically defer to the legislative and executive branches.
Definition of Judicial Activism
Judicial activism refers to the judiciary’s proactive stance in interpreting laws. It often leads to the enhancement of individual rights and liberties. This approach ensures that justice is served, particularly in cases where legislative or executive actions may infringe upon fundamental rights.
Historical Context
Judicial activism gained prominence in India after the 1970s. The Emergency period (1975-1977) brought into light the need for judicial intervention to safeguard democracy and rights. The period saw increased awareness regarding social justice and the protection of fundamental rights, setting the stage for a more dynamic judiciary.
Key Features of Judicial Activism
- Interpretation of the Constitution: Courts interpret constitutional provisions in a manner that promotes justice and equity.
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary actively protects individual rights from state actions that may violate them.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PILs allow individuals or groups to file petitions for the public good, broadening access to justice.
- Judicial Review: Courts have the power to review legislative and executive actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution.
Landmark Cases in Judicial Activism
Several landmark cases illustrate the essence of judicial activism in India:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This case established the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court expanded Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to include the right to a fair procedure.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, reinforcing gender justice.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): This landmark judgment decriminalised consensual homosexual acts, affirming the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.
Criticism of Judicial Activism
While judicial activism has its merits, it also faces criticism:
- Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the judiciary sometimes oversteps its mandate, encroaching upon the legislative and executive domains.
- Lack of Accountability: Concerns arise regarding the unelected nature of judges making policy decisions without direct accountability.
- Inconsistency: Critics point out varying interpretations of laws, leading to unpredictability in legal outcomes.
Support for Judicial Activism
Despite criticisms, many advocate for judicial activism:
- Social Justice: Proponents argue that judicial activism is vital for protecting marginalized groups and ensuring social justice.
- Checks and Balances: It is viewed as a necessary check on legislative and executive powers, ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.
Role in Contemporary Issues
Judicial activism plays an active role in contemporary issues:
- The judiciary engages in cases related to environmental protection, denoting the need for sustainable development.
- Women’s rights issues have seen judicial intervention, aiming to create a safer and more equitable society.
- Anti-corruption measures are boosted by judicial activism, enhancing transparency and accountability in governance.
- Engagement with public interest issues, such as healthcare and education, reflects the judiciary’s commitment to social welfare.
