Judicial Activism - Connect Civils

Judicial activism denotes the proactive role played by the judiciary in the protection of the rights of citizens and in the promotion of justice in the society. It is commonly marked by decision calling for social engineering, and occasionally these decisions represent intrusion in the legislative and executive matters. PIL is an outcome of judicial activism.

Constitutional Provision : Articles 13, 21, 32, 226 and 227 and Article 142 (power to do ‘complete justice’)

Benefits

Concerns

Addressing legislative or executive inaction:
- For example, in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan(1997), the guidelines for the protection of women at workplace from sexual harassment were laid down
Transferring Responsibility for Tough Decisions to Courts :
- invalidation of Triple talaq in Shayara Bano case (2017)
Promoting Social Change:
- For instance, in Navtej Singh Johar case, 2018 Supreme Court decriminalized of same-sex relations.
Protecting essential features of constitution
- The Supreme Court ruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. the State of Kerala that the power to amend the Constitution guaranteed by the Constitution did not include the possibility of amending the most fundamental and essential elements of the Constitution

Protection of Citizens rights and freedoms.
- National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014): In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the right to self-identify one’s gender and held that transgender persons have the right to be treated as their self-identified gender rather than their assigned gender at birth.
The invention of Public Interest Litigation
- In Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court acknowledged the appalling conditions of undertrial prisoners, deeming the right to speedy trial a fundamental right under Article 21
Women empowerment
- In the Laxmi v. Union of India (2015) case : Supreme Court put strict restrictions on the sale of acid due to the rise in cases involving acid attacks on women.
Revolutionized the interpretation of Article 21:
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India : life includes more than mere existence; it entails all associated rights. It emphasized that the process for denying life and liberty must be just and reasonable.

Damaging separation of powers:
- For example, recent Anoop Baranwal verdict on appointment of election commissioners of India through the collegium system.
Judicial activism must not become judicial adventurism → otherwise it takes the form of Judicial overreach.
- Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016): The Supreme Court, in this case, made it mandatory that all the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts.
- recent Supreme Court verdict on Section 153C of the Income Tax Act
Incompetency of judiciary: administrative authorities have expertise in the field of administration while the court does not.
- In 2016, the Supreme Court banned liquor sale at retail outlets that are within 500 meters of any National or State highway. The order was passed without factoring in the economic and employment consequences.
Judicial supremacy: Through Judicial activism, it has undertaken to create judicial supremacy over all three constitutionally created wings.
- For example, the SC struck down NJAC Act in favour of the collegium system.
No external regulation: The executive remains “accountable” to the people but judges exercise self-regulation and are insulated from any external control.
Undermines trust in Parliament: It reduces the trust people pose in the Parliament and elected representatives as frequent overreach signals executive inactivity and incompetency.
Undemocratic: Judicial overreach appears as an act of ‘tyranny of unelected’ in a democracy.
- Arun Gopal v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court had fixed timings for setting off fireworks during Diwali and had banned the use of fireworks that are not environmentally friendly.
Judicial populism: Judges are human beings. Sometimes judges admit PIL cases on account of raising an issue that is popular in the society.

In conclusion, while judicial activism serves as a crucial tool for upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice, it must be tempered with judicial restraint to prevent overreach and maintain the balance of powers.

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting rights, filling legislative gaps, and ensuring executive accountability. It has significantly influenced governance and policy-making in India.

Impact of Judicial Activism on Governance & Policy-Making in India

Positive Impacts:

Protection of Rights- Expanded fundamental rights (e.g., Right to Privacy in Puttaswamy).
Policy Corrections- Directed reforms in pollution control (Vardhman Kaushik case), food security (Right to Food), and LGBTQ+ rights (Navtej Johar case).
Executive Accountability- Enforced transparency (e.g., Electoral Bonds struck down, 2024).
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)- Enabled citizen-driven justice (e.g., Vishaka Guidelines for workplace harassment).

Challenges:

Judicial Overreach- Intrusion into executive domain (e.g., NJAC struck down, 2015).
Policy Paralysis- Delayed infrastructure projects due to litigation (e.g., environmental clearances).
Implementation Gaps- Weak enforcement of rulings (e.g., crackers ban flouted annually).
Unequal Access- PILs often benefit urban elites over rural marginalized groups.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply