Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in upholding and enforcing the rights and liberties of citizens, often stepping in where the executive or legislative branches may be lacking. In India, judicial activism has played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s legal and social landscape.
Historical Background
Early Examples: The concept of judicial activism in India can be traced back to the 1970s, particularly during the Emergency period (1975-1977), when the judiciary began asserting its independence more vigorously.
Post-Emergency Era: The landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and the subsequent Minerva Mills case (1980) established the judiciary's role in protecting the basic structure of the Constitution, laying the groundwork for future activism.
Significance of Judicial Activism
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): One of the most significant tools of judicial activism. It allows individuals or groups to file petitions on behalf of those whose rights have been violated, often leading to landmark judgments and policy changes.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary ensures that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are protected, often stepping in to provide relief in cases where citizens' rights are infringed upon.
Protection of Vulnerable Sections: Activist judgments have often focused on protecting the rights of marginalized and vulnerable groups, ensuring social justice.
Free & Fair Elections: The judiciary plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the electoral process, ensuring free and fair elections.
Checking Arbitrary Abuse of Power: Judicial activism acts as a check on arbitrary decisions by the legislature and executive, preventing the abuse of power.
Filling Legislative Voids: The judiciary often fills gaps in legislation, providing guidelines and frameworks in areas where laws are either absent or inadequate.
Upholding Constitutional Integrity: The judiciary ensures that all actions by the state and its organs are in conformity with the Constitution, thus upholding its integrity.
Landmark Cases
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the interpretation of Article 21, stating that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, leading to the enactment of the POSH Act.
MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986): Addressed environmental issues and led to the introduction of stringent environmental regulations.
NEET-UG 2024 Paper Leak Case: The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the paper leak, ordering a thorough investigation and ensuring that the affected students' interests were safeguarded, thus upholding the sanctity of the examination process.
Child Care Leave for Mothers of Disabled Children Case: The judiciary ruled in favor of granting extended child care leave to mothers of disabled children, recognizing the unique challenges faced by these families and ensuring their rights to adequate care and support.
Property Rights in Marriage Case: The court's decision to grant equal property rights to spouses within a marriage reflects its commitment to gender equality and the protection of women’s rights within the marital framework.
Judicial Overreach: There are instances where judicial activism borders on overreach, infringing on the domains of the legislature and executive. For example:
Firecrackers Ban: The Supreme Court’s ban on firecrackers during festivals was seen by some as an overreach into cultural practices.
Delhi Liquor Ban: Judicial orders affecting the sale and regulation of liquor in Delhi raised concerns about the judiciary encroaching on regulatory domains.
Anoop Baranwal Case: The court's involvement in the appointment process of the Chief Election Commissioner was criticized as an overstepping of its mandate.
Lack of Accountability: Judges, unlike elected representatives, are not directly accountable to the public, raising concerns about the legitimacy of their decisions in matters of policy.
Delay in Justice: An overburdened judiciary focusing on activism may lead to delays in the dispensation of regular justice.
Maintaining Balance: The judiciary should strive to maintain a balance between activism and restraint, ensuring it does not encroach upon the functions of the legislature and executive.
Clear Guidelines: Establishing clear guidelines for when and how judicial activism should be exercised can help prevent overreach.
Public Accountability: Enhancing the accountability of the judiciary through transparent processes and public scrutiny can help mitigate concerns about judicial overreach.
Collaborative Approach: Encouraging a collaborative approach between the judiciary, legislature, and executive can ensure that each branch functions effectively within its domain while respecting the roles of the others.
Judicial activism in India has been a double-edged sword. While it has played a crucial role in protecting rights and fostering justice, it also raises concerns about the separation of powers and judicial overreach. The challenge lies in maintaining a delicate balance between judicial activism and restraint to ensure that the judiciary remains a guardian of the Constitution without undermining democratic principles.