Judicial Activism in Political Matters: Ensuring Accountability or Breaching Separation of Powers?

Author: Vedika Mishra,bKC Law College



Abstract


India, being the world’s largest democracy, is founded on three pillars- the legislature, executive, and judiciary. It is crucial that these three functions independently and not arbitrarily. In today’s time, the judiciary is playing an active role, acting as a watchdog over the executive and legislature. But is it constitutionally and democratically appropriate for the judiciary to do so, considering the constitutional principles? Is it really possible for the three branches of the world’s largest democracy to function independently without any interdependence on each other?
Separation of Powers is a guiding principle based on the Constitution of India, but it cannot be implemented in an absolute manner. In reality, these three branches are interdependent on each other and must work in coordination, while maintaining their functional autonomy.
This article will explore the concept of judicial activism, its role in the political matters, and assess the boundaries of judicial involvement in politics.



To The Point


Judiciary plays a significant role in upholding and protecting the Constitution of India. There is a common assumption that the judiciary only deals with interpreting and enforcing laws, rather than creating them. It gives judgment on the basis of the facts and evidence presented before the court of law. Due to certain circumstances, the judiciary is forced to play an active role by creating laws, when the legislature and executive fail to do so. This is known as judicial activism. There have been countless occasions where the judiciary has taken upon itself the role of a law maker to ensure access to justice for all the citizens of India. This is because there should always be a remedy, where there is an infringement of right, and access to justice must be provided to all the citizens of India, irrespective of the fact whether there is an existing law or not.

There are various modes of judicial activism through which the judiciary plays an active role, such as judicial review under Article 13 of the Constitution of India, writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, Suo moto cognizance by the Supreme Court or the High Courts, supervisory power of the higher courts over the lower courts, and Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions and guidelines to protect fundamental rights and facilitate access to justice for all citizens of India in the absence of specific legislation.

But there is a very thin line between judicial activism and judicial overreach. While performing the role of an activist and a social reformer, the judiciary at times transgresses its constitutional limits, resulting in judicial overreach. Thus, it is important to understand whether judicial activism is a constitutional tool to ensure access to justice and protect fundamental rights, or if it constitutes a breach of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.



Use of Legal Jargon


Judicial Activism: It refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary to protect the fundamental rights and to ensure justice for all the citizens of the country. It is a consequence of corruption in the executive and loss of faith in Parliament.

Judicial Overreach: It refers to the judiciary transgressing its constitutional powers and starts interfering in every aspect, which disrupts the balance of power between the legislature, executive and judiciary.

Judicial Restraint: It is when the court of law limits the exercise of its own powers. It helps in maintaining constitutional balance between the legislature, executive and judiciary. It also prevents concentration of authority.

Judicial Review: It is the power of the court of law to examine the constitutional validity of the laws and to ensure that these laws are not unconstitutional.

Separation of Powers: It is a constitutional principle. It divides the function of government among the legislature, executive and judiciary. It focuses on the independence and interdependence of these three branches.

Public Interest Litigation: PIL allows any individual or group to approach the court of law for the protection of public interest. It helps in addressing situations that require a legal remedy.



The Proof


Judicial Activism in Political Matters

In today’s time, the judiciary often plays a proactive role and intervenes in political matters. From being a mere interpreter and enforcer of laws passed by the legislature, the judiciary has taken upon itself the role of an activist and social reformer by issuing directives and guidelines to the legislature and executive, effectively shaping laws. This is a consequence of corruption in the executive, the incapability of the executive and legislature to fulfill their duties and obligations, and a complete loss of faith in Parliament.


Political Inaction

The biggest reason behind the judiciary’s active role is the incapability of the legislature and executive. When corruption is rampant, citizens of India have no choice but to approach the courts for the protection of their fundamental rights and uphold the Constitution of India. Due to corruption and political inaction, the courts are forced to step in and play a more expansive role. Therefore, the courts take upon themselves the responsibility of addressing social evils that exist in society.


Positive Impact of Judicial Activism

Judicial activism has played a significant role in upholding the Constitution of India and ensuring access to justice for all citizens in India. This is due to political inaction, rampant corruption, and the inability of the legislature and executive to perform their duties and obligations, resulting in the courts expanding their functions. The judiciary performs functions such as examining laws that are unconstitutional in nature and declaring them void. Additionally, the courts oversee the misuse of powers, protect democratic norms, resolve disputes related to elections (including disqualification of candidates and electoral malpractices), and interpret anti-defection laws to ensure stability in political matters. It also addresses violations of the model code of conduct and helps fight corruption by ensuring fair investigations and upholding democratic accountability.


Negative Consequences of Judicial Activism

There is a very thin line between judicial activism and judicial overreach. A significant concern with judicial activism is that judges, who are appointed and not directly elected by the citizens of India, decide on matters that require judicial intervention. This leads to a scenario where judges are making decisions on behalf of the people who did not elect them. Additionally, judges are not accountable to the citizens, as they are not directly elected. Therefore, excessive judicial involvement is not considered entirely positive due to the lack of accountability. Furthermore, while performing the role of an activist and social reformer, the judiciary sometimes transgresses its constitutional limits, resulting in judicial overreach.




Case Laws



Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that any Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) convicted of a criminal offense attracting a sentence of two years or more would be immediately disqualified from holding office, irrespective of the pendency of an appeal. This judgment was a significant judicial intervention in political matters.


Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998): This case dealt with the Jain Hawala scam, which implicated several high-ranking politicians. The Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines for insulating the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and other investigative agencies from political interference.



Conclusion


Judicial activism is a necessary tool for protecting fundamental rights and ensuring access to justice for all citizens of India. However, at times, the judiciary transgresses its constitutional limits in order to do so, which leads to judicial overreach. Therefore, it is significant for the judiciary to maintain a balance while playing a proactive role as an activist and social reformer. It remains a vital mechanism for the judiciary to act as a watchdog over the executive and legislature, but it must be exercised with restraint in order to maintain the balance among all the branches.



FAQS

Q.1. What is judicial activism?

Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary to protect the fundamental rights and to ensure justice for all the citizens of the country. It is a consequence of corruption in the executive and loss of faith in Parliament.


Q.2. How is judicial activism different from judicial overreach?

Judicial Overreach refers to judiciary transgressing its constitutional powers and starts interfering in every aspect, which disrupts the balance of power between the legislature, executive and judiciary.


Q.3. Why does the judiciary often intervene in political matters?

The biggest reason behind the judiciary’s active role is the incapability of the legislature and executive. When corruption is rampant, citizens of India have no choice but to approach the courts for the protection of their fundamental rights and uphold the Constitution of India. Due to corruption and political inaction, the courts are forced to step in and play a more expansive role. Therefore, the courts take upon themselves the responsibility of addressing social evils that exist in society.



Q.4. What role does PIL play in judicial activism?

Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary to protect the fundamental rights and to ensure justice for all the citizens of the country. It is a consequence of corruption in the executive and loss of faith in Parliament. PIL allows any individual or group to approach the court of law for the protection of public interest. It helps in addressing situations that require a legal remedy.


Q.5. Is judicial activism a threat to democracy?

No, it’s not a threat to democracy. Judicial activism is a necessary tool for protecting fundamental rights and ensuring access to justice for all citizens of India. However, at times, the judiciary transgresses its constitutional limits in order to do so, which leads to judicial overreach. It remains a vital mechanism for the judiciary to act as a watchdog over the executive and legislature, but it must be exercised with restraint in order to maintain the balance among all the branches.