Author : Asmat Ayyoob
Judicial activism
Judicial activism entails to the practice of judges interpreting cases in accordance with their own biases and perspectives when they believe that adherence to the law will not deliver sufficient justice in certain situations.
Before we dwell into the concept of judicial activism we need to understand its need in the contemporary society.
- Judicial activism helps safeguarding the rights of the citizen as well as upholding the democratic value of the nation. It is necessary whenever the judges feel that following the law straight up can go against the principle of natural justice. And to maintain the sanctity of justice, the law is interpreted with flexibility.
- Judicial activism helps maintain accountability within the system by scrutinizing their actions especially in cases related to human rights violation, mandamus, corruption etc…
- Judicial activism can also go beyond conventional legal usage to preserve cultural heritage and traditions that might otherwise be threatened by legislative or executive actions. For instance, in cases involving indigenous communities or religious practices, courts can intervene to ensure these cultural aspects are respected and protected within the framework of constitutional rights and obligations.
Historical background of Judicial Activism
There are old historical origins to the concept of judicial activism, which involves judges actively interpreting laws and at times making decisions related to public policy. The case of “Marbury v. Madison” in the United States in 1803 is one of the first instances that is often referred to. In this case the US Supreme Court held a congress legislation as unconstitutional marking the foundation of its power of judicial review. This ruling was a pivotal point in the global history of judicial activism because it established the idea that the judiciary could overturn legislation that was against the constitution.
Indian experience of Judicial Activism
The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) in India was a watershed point in judicial review. The Supreme Court upheld the basic structure doctrine, stating that while Parliament may modify and amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its core framework. This ruling guarded fundamental rights and created judicial review of constitutional amendments, ensuring that they do not compromise the key elements of India’s democratic and federal system. The Kesavananda Bharati case strengthened the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional integrity thorough judicial review, which influence later interpretations and implementations of the Indian Constitution.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India transformed judicial review by permitting any individual to approach the courts on behalf of the public interest. This mechanism authorized the judiciary to intervene in cases involving human rights, the environment, corruption, and governance. Two noteworthy PIL cases are:
In Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Indian Supreme Court maintained judicial activism via establishing guidelines on combating workplace sexual harassment. This landmark ruling highlighted the judiciary’s role in safeguarding basic rights and resolving social challenges where legislative protections were insufficient or missing.
In MC Mehta vs. Union of India (1986), judicial activism addressed worsening environmental conditions in Delhi, resulting in landmark decisions to cut down pollution. The case highlighted the judiciary’s proactive role in protecting public health and environmental rights by creating policy and governance outside of legislative constraints.
PILs continue to help increase the scope of judicial review in India, guaranteeing accountability and fairness in public affairs.
Judicial Restraint
Judicial restraint is a doctrine that demands judges to minimize their power in order to respect the separation of powers, and defer to the legislative and executive branches wherever possible. It emphasizes exact interpretation of laws and the avoidance of policy decisions in order to safeguard democratic values and the rule of law while preserving judicial independence and impartiality.
Indian experience of judicial restraint
Judicial restraint in India emphasizes a careful approach in which judges avoid overstepping legislative and executive powers in order to maintain the integrity mentioned in the constitution. Judicial Restraint is the antithesis of Judicial Activism.
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court of India exhibited judicial restraint by carefully studying the constitutional provisions governing election disputes. Despite the high-profile nature of the Prime Minister’s case, the Court upheld democratic principles by carefully balancing its role with parliamentary sovereignty, proving the importance of legal process and constitutional standards over judicial activism in politically volatile matters.
In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), the Supreme Court of India used judicial restraint by supporting the constitutional basis of legislative sovereignty. The Court refrained to intervene in legislative affairs involving the implementation of President’s rule in Rajasthan, stating that such actions are the responsibility of the executive and legislative organs. This ruling reaffirmed the Court’s commitment to restricting judicial invasion in political and administrative activities, safeguarding India’s separation of powers and democratic government.
Judicial activism v judicial restraint: Theoretical basis
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing perspectives on the proper role of courts in interpreting laws and that impact public affairs.
Judicial Activism encourages courts to actively interpret laws in light of changing society norms and values. It proposes that judges not only handle legal disputes, but also close legislative gaps and promote justice by addressing social challenges. This strategy frequently requires wide interpretations of constitutional rights and liberties to assure their protection, even if it entails questioning legislative intent or presidential acts. Proponents say that judicial activism is required to preserve the spirit of the constitution and defend individual rights against potential infringement by other branches of government.
In contrast, Judicial Restraint encourages judges to confine their responsibility to rigorously interpreting the law and refrain from making policy choices. It emphasizes respect for legislative power and executive discretion while calling for judicial deference unless there is a clear constitutional violation. This approach emphasizes judicial impartiality and fidelity to legal precedent, arguing that courts should avoid overstepping their institutional limitations and meddling in political processes.
In theory, the argument over judicial activism and restraint is around achieving a balance between judicial oversight and institutional deference, guaranteeing effective governance while upholding constitutional norms. The theoretical foundation of each doctrine shapes how judges approach their tasks, influencing legal interpretations and judgments in complicated socioeconomic circumstances.
Conclusion
In the ongoing argument between judicial activitism and judicial restraint, the opposing theories offer opposing perspectives on the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws and creating societal norms.
Judicial activism advocates for a proactive judicial strategy, with judges interpreting laws flexibly to solve developing societal concerns and ensure justice, even if it means filling legislative gaps or opposing executive acts. This approach emphasizes the judiciary’s critical role in upholding constitutional ideals and defending individual liberties against potential government excess.
In contrast, judicial restraint encourages a careful judicial approach that prioritizes strict respect to legal texts and refrains from making policy choices. It emphasizes the significance of preserving the separation of powers, arguing for judicial deference to the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear constitutional breach. This concept seeks to protect democratic norms and institutional integrity while ensuring judicial neutrality and impartiality.
In theory, the argument between judicial activity and judicial restraint is around striking a delicate balance: guaranteeing effective governance and respecting constitutional standards while not weakening democratic processes or institutional authority. The theoretical underpinnings of each doctrine impact how judges traverse complicated legal and societal concerns, hence defining the trajectory of jurisprudence in modern nations across the world.
FAQ’s
1. What is judicial activism?
2. Why is judicial activism considered necessary in contemporary society?
3. How does judicial activism differ from judicial restraint?
4. What are some examples of judicial activism in India?
5. How does judicial restraint contribute to democratic governance?
