What is Judicial Activism? A must-know 13-point Essay

Judicial Activism: Introduction

Whether it is a State Governments or Central Government, all governments when decision comes other than their own narrative, they start blaming judiciary for Judicial Activism. The Judicial activism is an important topic in law. It means when judges take an active role in solving public problems. Sometimes, courts make decisions that go beyond just interpreting the law. They try to protect rights or improve the system. This is called judicial activism.

In this essay we will explains the meaning, history, importance, and examples of judicial activism. It also discusses its advantages and disadvantages. We will use simple language, real-life cases, and key examples to make the topic easy to understand.

Read this also: Compare the Eastern and Western Thoughts on the Concept of Justice in 10 points

What is Judicial Activism?

Judicial activism happens when judges use their power to bring change. It is not just about applying laws but also about making sure justice is done. In some cases, courts take steps that are not mentioned clearly in the law.

Judicial activism is often used to protect human rights. It also helps when the government fails to act. Courts step in to fill the gap.

Origin and History of Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism is very profound word and everybody talk about the Judicial activism but when it started and where it started and what was the idea behind it . The idea of judicial activism is not new. It started in the United States in the early 20th century. The term “judicial activism” was first used by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947.

In India, the idea became popular in the 1980s. The Supreme Court started giving decisions that helped poor people and protected the environment. This was the start of a new phase.

Read this also : What Is the Judicial Process? Explanation in 15 points with Examples

Judicial Activism in India

As stated above, the concept of judicial activism became popular in India in the 1980s. But the Founding Fathers of our Constitution had made provisions in our Constitution while drafting it, and they provided Article 32 and Article 226, which enable the citizens to approach the Supreme Court and the High Court directly for the protection of their fundamental rights

In India, judicial activism plays a big role. The Constitution gives the judiciary the power to protect rights. Articles 32 and 226 allow citizens to approach the courts directly.

The courts can issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo-Warranto. These help people get justice when other systems fail.

One special part of Indian judicial activism is Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Anyone can file a PIL for public good. This helps people who can’t afford to go to court.

Key Features of Judicial Activism

Judicial activism has played a very important role in protecting the civil rights of Indian citizens, and it has some clear key features which are as under:

1. Protection of Rights – Courts defend people’s rights when they are violated. For example, if someone’s freedom is taken away without reason, the court can step in.
2. PILs (Public Interest Litigations) – This is a unique feature. It allows people who are not directly affected to file a case for the public good. It empowers ordinary citizens to become protectors of public interest.
3. Checks and Balances – Courts make sure that the government does not misuse its power. If any law or action goes against the Constitution, the court can cancel it.
4. Support for the Poor and Marginalized – Judicial activism often supports the weaker sections of society. It gives voice to people who are usually ignored.
5. Creative Role – Judges sometimes interpret laws in new ways. This helps in solving problems where no clear law exists. It also leads to the development of new legal principles.

Landmark Cases of Judicial Activism in India

The Supreme Court and the High Court delivered many judgments for the protection of the rights of citizens. Several cases have shaped Indian judicial activism, and some of the Landmark Cases of Judicial Activism in India are as under:

Read this also: In 8 points Know why Intellectual Property Rights Matter in the Indian Economy

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
   • The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
   • This case protected democracy and prevented misuse of power.
   • It introduced the “basic structure doctrine,” which is now a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
   • The government stopped Maneka Gandhi from traveling abroad without giving a reason.
   • The court said the right to travel is part of the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
   • This widened the scope of fundamental rights and ensured fair procedure.
3. MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986)
   • Environmentalist MC Mehta filed a PIL against pollution in Delhi.
   • The court passed many orders related to vehicle pollution, industrial waste, and cleaning the Ganga.
   • This case set the foundation for environmental law in India.
4. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
   • A woman social worker was gang-raped in Rajasthan.
   • There were no proper laws on sexual harassment at that time.
   • The court created the Vishaka Guidelines, which became the law until Parliament passed legislation in 2013.
5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
   • Filed to reform the police system in India.
   • The court ordered states to set up State Security Commissions and separate crime investigation from law and order.
   • This was a major step towards making police more independent and fair.
6. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
   • This case challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
   • The Supreme Court decriminalized same-sex relationships.
   • This landmark judgment upheld dignity and equality for the LGBTQ+ community.

Advantages of Judicial Activism

Judicial activism played a very important role in shaping the Indian democracy, and some of the advantages of judicial activism are as under:

1. Protects Rights – It helps people when their rights are violated.
2. Fills Legal Gaps – When laws are not clear or missing, courts step in.
3. Promotes Good Governance – It keeps the government responsible.
4. Helps the Poor – Activism often supports people who cannot fight alone.
5. Develops Law – New interpretations help the law grow with time.

Disadvantages of Judicial Activism

Nothing is perfect, not even judicial activism. It has some advantages, but some disadvantages. Some of it disadvantages are listed below:

1. Overreach – Sometimes courts enter into areas meant for the government.
2. Lack of Expertise – Judges may not always understand policy matters fully.
3. Against Separation of Powers – It may disturb the balance between legislature, executive, and judiciary.
4. Not Elected – Judges are not elected by the public, but still make important decisions.
5. Subjective Decisions – Activism depends on the judge’s personal views.

Difference Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

• Judicial Activism means the court is active in making decisions that bring change.
• Judicial Restraint means the court avoids interfering too much and lets the government

The following are some examples of these two:

• In activism, the court may order a ban on firecrackers to reduce pollution.
• In restraint, the court may ask the government to make the rule instead.

Judicial Activism and Constitution

The Constitution of India supports judicial activism through Articles 32 and 226. The Preamble talks about justice, liberty, and equality. Courts use these ideas to make sure laws follow the spirit of the Constitution.

Judicial Activism and PIL (Public Interest Litigation)

PIL is a big part of activism. It helps people who cannot go to court by themselves. Many PILs have led to big changes.

The following are some Famous PILs:

• Cleaning of the Ganga River
• Ban on smoking in public places
• Mid-day meals in schools

Judicial Activism in Other Countries like the USA(United States of America)

1. United States
   • Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Ended racial segregation in schools.
   • Roe v. Wade (1973): Gave women the right to choose abortion (later overturned).
2. Pakistan
   • Courts have often acted against corruption.
   • Activism helped in checking misuse of power.

When is Judicial Activism Needed?

India is a democratic country where the government is a democratically elected government, they understand the mood of the people better, and judicial activism should not always be, but in the following case; judicial activism must:

• When the government fails to act.
• When people’s rights are in danger.
• When there is no proper law.
• In public interest cases.

When Should Courts Show Restraint?

• In matters of policy and governance.
• When Parliament is already working on the issue.
• If the court does not have all facts or data.

Conclusion

Judicial activism is a powerful tool. It helps protect people’s rights. It fills the gaps left by the government. But it should be used with care. Courts must not go beyond their limits because elected governments have more information for taking the right steps than the court, so activism is good, but hyper activism will create a gap between the government and the judiciary, which is not good for the country.

As future lawyers and judges, law students must understand both the power and limits of judicial activism. It is useful, but only when used wisely.

Judicial activism should promote justice, not personal opinions. It should protect the Constitution, not replace the government.

Bibliography/ Reference

1. The Constitution of India – Government of India Publication.
2. Basu, D.D. Introduction to the Constitution of India. LexisNexis, 2022.
3. Jain, M.P. Indian Constitutional Law. LexisNexis, 8th Edition.
4. Schlesinger Jr., Arthur. “The Supreme Court: 1947.” Fortune Magazine, 1947.
5. Supreme Court of India – Judgments Archive. https://main.sci.gov.in
6. “Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,” AIR 1973 SC 1461.
7. “Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,” AIR 1978 SC 597.
8. “MC Mehta v. Union of India,” AIR 1987 SC 965.
9. “Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan,” AIR 1997 SC 3011.
10. “Prakash Singh v. Union of India,” (2006) 8 SCC 1.
11. “Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India,” (2018) 10 SCC 1.
12. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India – https://legislative.gov.in
13. Law Commission of India Reports – https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
14. SC Observer. “Judicial Activism in India.” https://scobserver.in