Judicial Activism in India
Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens, enforcing the Constitution, and ensuring justice, especially when the legislative and executive branches fail to do so. In India, judicial activism has emerged as a significant phenomenon where courts go beyond traditional interpretations to uphold constitutional values and public interest.
Origins and Evolution:
Judicial activism in India gained momentum after independence, particularly from the 1970s onwards. Initially, the judiciary followed a conservative approach, restricting itself to interpretation of laws. However, circumstances such as political instability, social injustice, and human rights violations led courts to adopt a more interventionist stance.
The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) laid the foundation by asserting the basic structure doctrine and empowering courts to review constitutional amendments. This case marked the judiciary’s resolve to protect the Constitution’s fundamental principles.
Characteristics of Judicial Activism
-
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A crucial tool of judicial activism, PIL allows any public-spirited individual or organization to approach the courts on behalf of those unable to do so, such as marginalized or underprivileged groups. This broadened access to justice and expanded judicial oversight on matters like environmental protection, corruption, and human rights.
-
Judicial Review: The power of courts to invalidate laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution. This ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and checks arbitrary use of power.
-
Expansive Interpretation: Courts interpret laws and rights broadly to promote justice, equity, and social welfare, often reading into the Constitution new rights like the right to privacy and clean environment.
-
Activist Remedies: Courts often issue directions, guidelines, or supervisory orders to the executive or legislature to enforce rights and policies, stepping into areas traditionally handled by other branches.
Reasons for Judicial Activism in India:
-
Inefficiency of Executive and Legislature: Judicial activism has often been a response to government failure in protecting rights, implementing laws, or controlling corruption.
-
Vulnerable Sections: Courts have stepped in to safeguard the rights of weaker sections such as scheduled castes, minorities, women, children, and the poor.
-
Democratic Deepening: Judicial activism promotes transparency, accountability, and good governance.
-
Constitutional Supremacy: The judiciary’s duty to uphold the Constitution and fundamental rights compels it to act when other branches lag.
Examples of Judicial Activism in India:
-
Environmental Protection: In the MC Mehta cases, the Supreme Court issued directions to control pollution, regulate industries, and protect the Taj Mahal and Ganga river.
-
Right to Information and Transparency: The courts have supported laws enhancing public access to government information.
-
Death Penalty and Human Rights: The judiciary has intervened to limit the death penalty to the “rarest of rare” cases and ensured fair trial rights.
-
Anti-Corruption Measures: Courts have directed investigations and reforms in agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
-
Social Justice: PILs have led to reforms in prison conditions, bonded labor, bonded children’s education, and traffic regulations.
Criticisms of Judicial Activism
-
Overreach: Critics argue that courts sometimes encroach on the domain of the legislature and executive, violating the separation of powers.
-
Undemocratic: Judicial activism is sometimes seen as undemocratic because unelected judges make policy decisions.
-
Delay and Litigation: Increased PILs can lead to judicial backlog and delayed justice.
-
Lack of Expertise: Courts may lack the technical knowledge required for complex policy issues.
Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism
Judicial activism contrasts with judicial restraint, where courts avoid interfering in legislative or executive matters unless there is a clear constitutional violation. Judicial restraint advocates argue for respecting elected bodies and limiting courts’ role to legal interpretation.
Indian judiciary often balances activism and restraint, guided by the principle of constitutional morality and evolving societal needs.
Impact of Judicial Activism on Indian Democracy
-
Strengthening Rights: It has expanded the scope of fundamental rights, making the Constitution a living document.
-
Accountability: Acts as a check on corruption and abuse of power.
-
Public Awareness: Judicial pronouncements raise awareness about social issues.
-
Policy Change: Courts have driven progressive social and environmental policies.