| Aspect | Judicial Activism | Judicial Overreach |
| Definition | Active role by judiciary in upholding rights and ensuring justice. | Judiciary crosses limits and interferes in legislative/executive domain. |
| Scope | Works within constitutional boundaries to fill legislative gaps. | Goes beyond constitutional limits, often undermining separation of powers. |
| Purpose | Promotes public interest, accountability, and social justice. | May stem from subjective interpretations or judicial arrogance. |
| Examples | PILs, Vishakha case (guidelines on sexual harassment). | Striking down NJAC Act despite broad political consensus. |
| Constitutional Validity | Justified as long as it protects fundamental rights and rule of law. | Unjustified when it disregards roles of other organs of government. |
| Scholarly View | Seen as a protector of democracy when governance fails. | Criticized as judicial dictatorship or usurpation of power. |
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 |
|
|
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.
Several landmark Supreme Court judgments have shaped the landscape of electoral practices, ensuring fairness, transparency, and adherence to democratic principles.
- ADR v. Union of India (2002): Mandated disclosure of candidates’ criminal records, educational qualifications, and personal assets for elections.
- PUCL v. Union of India (2013): Recognized negative voting as a constitutional right and directed the implementation of the ‘NOTA’ option in electronic voting machines.
- Subramanian Swamy case (2013): Declared VVPAT as indispensable for free and fair elections.
- Lily Thomas case (2013): Held that convicted MPs and MLAs will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months’ time for appeal.
- Establishment of special courts (2017): Ordered by the Supreme Court to expedite trials involving lawmakers, leading to the setup of 12 special courts nationwide.
- Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018): Directed the Election Commission to mandate political parties and candidates with criminal backgrounds to publish information about their antecedents during the campaign period.
- Supreme Court directive (November 2023): Asked the Central Government to take a stand on controlling the announcement of freebies by political parties during election campaigns.
- Electoral bonds scheme struck down (February 2024): which provided blanket anonymity to political donors.
The judiciary in India plays a vital role in defining Essential Religious Practices (ERP) under Article 25, but its expanding role has sparked debate over religious autonomy vs constitutional morality.
Constitutional Basis:
- Article 25(1): Guarantees freedom of conscience and religion, subject to public order, morality & health.
- Judicial Interpretation: Courts evaluate if a practice is essential by referring to scriptures, customs, and doctrinal texts.
- State Regulation Permitted: Under Article 25(2)(a), the State can regulate secular activities associated with religion.
- Article 26: Protects the right to manage religious affairs, but subject to public order and health — giving courts balancing power.
Key Judicial Interventions:
- Shirur Mutt Case (1954)– ERP doctrine originated; the court said religious denominations decide what is essential, not the State.
- Sabarimala Case (2018)- Banned women’s entry held non-essential, prioritizing gender equality.
- Triple Talaq Case (2017)– Instant talaq ruled unconstitutional as it lacked Quranic sanction.
- Haji Ali Dargah Case (2016)– Bombay HC allowed women into dargah’s sanctum, holding the ban non-essential.
- Ram Janmabhoomi Case (2019)– SC carefully avoided ERP discussion, signalling the limits of judicial intrusion into religious belief.
Criticism of Judicial Role:
- Judicial Overreach: Courts risk acting as theologians, interpreting religious texts beyond the legal domain.
- Lack of Standard Test: No uniform method to determine ERP leads to inconsistency and unpredictability.
- Religious Autonomy Erosion: Communities fear State-controlled religion.
- Selective Application: ERP doctrine is used more in minority practices, raising concerns of bias and imbalance.
- Pending Constitutional Review: A 9-judge bench is reconsidering ERP’s validity, indicating a need for clarity and restraint.
