The term "judicial activism" refers to the judiciary's aggressive role in defending citizens' rights. In India, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have the authority to evaluate whether legislation is constitutional and to declare it unconstitutional if it is determined that the statute violates the constitution.
Origin of Judicial Activism
- The USA is where the idea of judicial activism first emerged and flourished.
- American historian and educator Arthur Schlesinger Jr. originally used this word in 1947.
- Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, P. N. Bhagwati, O. Chinnappa Reddy, and D.A. Desai established the groundwork for judicial activism in India.
Meaning of Judicial Activism
The term "judicial activism" refers to the role of the judiciary in India in proactively defending citizens' rights and advancing social justice. Stated differently, it suggests that the court has an active role in ensuring that the legislative and executive branches of government fulfill their constitutional obligations.
Judicial Activism Methods
In India, judicial activism is practiced in a variety of ways. They are:
- Judicial review (the judiciary's authority to interpret the constitution and declare any legislation or executive action unconstitutional if it determines that it violates the Constitution)
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL) (the offended party does not submit the petition; the petitioner must have no personal stake in the case; the court will only consider this petition if there is widespread public interest).
- Constitutional interpretation
- International statutes for the protection of constitutional rights
- The upper courts' authority to supervise the inferior courts
Necessity of Judicial Activism
Understanding the factors that contributed to the judiciary's greater involvement is crucial to comprehending its expanded function.
- Corruption was pervasive in other government agencies.
- The executive's job grew ruthless, and it was unable to produce the necessary outcomes.
- The legislature lost awareness of its legislative responsibilities.
- The democratic ideals were steadily deteriorating.
- Public interest lawsuits highlighted how urgent public concerns are.
The Indian judiciary was compelled to take an active part in such a situation. Only an institution like the court, which has the authority to right the myriad wrongs in society, could make it feasible. The Supreme Court and High Courts took on the task of resolving these issues in order to keep democracy intact.
Rise of Judicial Activism
The primary causes of judicial activism include:
- Because there is no question that the legislature and executive have not produced the intended outcomes;
- Because the executive and legislatures have not taken any action. It happens because inactivity and inefficiency have afflicted the whole system.
- Judicial activism has become more significant as a result of the exploitation and abuse of certain constitutional provisions, as well as the violation of fundamental human rights.
Judicial Activism Examples
It all began in 1973 when Indira Gandhi's candidacy was denied by the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court of India decided in 1979 that Bihar undertrials had already served longer sentences than they would have if found guilty.
Golaknath case: In this instance, the issues were whether the change was a law and whether or not it was possible to modify fundamental rights. The SC concluded that a new Constituent Assembly would be needed to change the Fundamental Rights and that they are not subject to the parliamentary restriction outlined in Article 13. Additionally, it was mentioned that while Article 368 outlines the process for amending the Constitution, it does not grant Parliament the authority to do so.
Kesavananda Bharati case: The fundamental framework of the Constitution was established by this ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament might modify any element of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, the "basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment." According to Indian law, the Indian Judiciary System has the authority to invalidate a parliamentary amendment that deviates from the fundamental framework of the Constitution.
The SC revoked 122 telecom licenses and spectrum allotted to eight telecom companies in the 2G scam, citing flaws in the distribution procedure.
In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a general ban on firecrackers in the Delhi-NCR region, with a few exceptions.
Hasan Ali Khan was accused of money laundering, and the SC used terror legislation against him.
Pros & Cons of Judicial Activism
Simply put, judicial activism occurs when judges disregard the law and instead incorporate their personal opinions into a verdict or punishment. Every legal case, for whatever cause, has an activist foundation, therefore it is crucial to balance the advantages and disadvantages in order to assess if the proposed line of action is appropriate.
Pros associated with Judicial Activism India
- A system of checks and balances for the other departments of government is outlined by judicial activism. It highlights the need for creativity through a solution.
- Judicial activism permits judges to exercise their own discretion where the law is unable to provide a balance.
- It gives judges credibility and sheds light on the problems. Judicial activism does not alter the judges' duty to uphold the nation's justice system. It only gives judges the authority to act within reasonable bounds. This demonstrates the ingrained faith in the Indian legal system and its rulings.
- Judicial activism assists the court in monitoring the state government's abuse of authority when it meddles and endangers the populace.
- It facilitates prompt resolution of issues when the legislature is unable to reach a consensus.
Cons Associated with Judicial Activism
- First, when it is unable to prevent the government from abusing its authority. In a sense, it restricts how the government may operate.
- When it supersedes any existing legislation, it blatantly transgresses the constitutionally mandated limit on the authority to be used.
- Once judges' views are obtained for a case, they serve as the benchmark for deciding subsequent cases.
- Because the verdict may be swayed by egotistical or personal interests, judicial activism may be detrimental to the general public.
- People's confidence in the honesty, caliber, and effectiveness of the government may be eroded by frequent judicial interventions.
Why is Judicial Activism needed?
- The public's trust in democracy and constitutional ideals is eroded when the legislature fails to enact the laws that are required to adapt to the changing times and when government agencies poorly and dishonestly carry out their administrative duties. In such a situation, the court enters areas that are typically reserved for the legislative and executive branches, leading to judicial legislation and judicial governance.
- If the government or any other third party violates the people's fundamental rights, courts may decide to help improve the condition of the populace.
- The most valuable and potent weapon in the judiciary's arsenal is the trust and faith that the public has in its ability to administer impartial justice and maintain the balance of power in any conflict.
Final Takeaways
In India, judicial activism is essential to maintaining constitutional principles and guaranteeing justice in situations where the legislative and executive branches are ineffective. The court protects basic rights and democratic values by interpreting the law, overturning unlawful statutes, and increasing access to justice through Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Judicial activism raises worries about the court infringing on the authority of the legislature and executive branch, even if it is a necessary check on government inefficiencies and overreach. Maintaining the separation of powers requires finding a balance between judicial involvement and respect for constitutional constraints.
All things considered, judicial activism is still a potent instrument for correcting social inequities, defending fundamental rights, and enforcing the law; but, it must be used carefully to maintain the democratic framework and institutional integrity.