IGNOUMATIC

Judicial activism, defined as the proactive role of the judiciary in shaping public policy and governance, has been a defining feature of India’s constitutional democracy. While judicial activism has played a crucial role in safeguarding fundamental rights, promoting social justice, and upholding the rule of law, it has also sparked debates about the proper role of the judiciary in a democratic society. This essay critically examines judicial activism in India, analyzing its impact, challenges, and implications for the functioning of democracy.

 Impact of Judicial Activism

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Judicial activism has been instrumental in protecting fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Landmark judgments such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded the scope of judicial review and affirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of individual liberties.

2. Social Justice and Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Supreme Court of India, through the mechanism of PIL, has intervened in matters of public interest to address socio-economic inequalities, environmental degradation, and governmental corruption. PILs have enabled marginalized groups and civil society organizations to seek redressal for grievances and hold the government accountable for its actions.

3. Judicial Oversight of Executive and Legislative Actions: Judicial activism has served as a check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches of government. The judiciary has intervened in cases of executive overreach, arbitrary detention, and legislative encroachment on fundamental rights, ensuring accountability and adherence to constitutional principles.

 Challenges and Criticisms

1. Policy-making vs. Adjudication: Critics argue that judicial activism blurs the distinction between policy-making and adjudication, encroaching on the domain of the executive and legislature. By assuming a proactive role in governance, the judiciary may exceed its constitutional mandate and undermine the principle of separation of powers.

2. Legitimacy and Democratic Accountability: Judicial activism raises questions about the legitimacy and democratic accountability of judicial decisions. Unelected judges, while well-intentioned, may lack the democratic mandate to make far-reaching decisions that impact public policy and governance.

3. Judicial Overreach and Judicial Restraint: Some observers contend that judicial activism risks judicial overreach, wherein the judiciary unduly interferes in matters best left to elected representatives. Advocates of judicial restraint argue for greater deference to the political branches of government and caution against judicial usurpation of democratic decision-making.

 Implications for Democracy

1. Balancing Rights and Responsibilities: Judicial activism presents a delicate balance between protecting individual rights and respecting democratic processes. While the judiciary has a vital role in safeguarding constitutional values, it must also exercise restraint and deference to the elected branches of government.

2. Accountability and Transparency: Judicial activism underscores the importance of accountability and transparency in judicial decision-making. While judicial independence is crucial for upholding the rule of law, the judiciary must remain accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the public it serves.

3. Strengthening Democratic Institutions: Judicial activism can complement and strengthen democratic institutions by serving as a check on governmental abuse of power and ensuring compliance with constitutional norms. However, it must be exercised judiciously, with due regard for democratic principles and institutional legitimacy.

 Conclusion

In conclusion, judicial activism in India has had a profound impact on the country’s constitutional democracy, shaping public policy, promoting social justice, and upholding the rule of law. While judicial activism has been instrumental in protecting fundamental rights and holding the government accountable, it has also raised concerns about democratic legitimacy, judicial overreach, and the proper role of the judiciary in a democratic society. As India continues to grapple with the complexities of governance and the challenges of social transformation, the judiciary must navigate the delicate balance between activism and restraint, ensuring that its interventions are guided by constitutional principles, democratic values, and the imperative of upholding the rule of law.