The concept of judicial activism, characterized by the judiciary’s proactive role in promoting justice beyond its conventional interpretative function, has emerged as a fundamental principle in shaping India’s democratic landscape. Throughout history, the Indian judiciary has not only served as a guardian of the Constitution but has also assumed the role of a vanguard for social justice, diligently safeguarding the rights of marginalized communities and upholding the ideals of democracy.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN INDIA :
Judicial activism entails the proactive interpretation of laws by judges to address legislative gaps, safeguard constitutional principles, and advance justice. This approach often becomes imperative when the executive and legislative branches fail to act in the public’s best interest. In India, judicial activism has developed through various landmark judgments and constitutional interpretations, making it an integral component of democratic governance.
The roots of judicial activism in India can be traced back to the 1970s, with cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which established the basic structure doctrine, preventing any constitutional amendment from violating fundamental rights. The judiciary’s expanding role was further solidified during the post-Emergency period, when it emerged as a guardian of democracy and individual liberties.
Role of Judicial Activism in Ensuring Social Justice:
Upholding Fundamental Rights: Judicial activism has been pivotal in protecting fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Landmark judgments such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) have broadened the interpretation of Article 21, underscoring that the “right to life” encompasses the right to live with dignity.
Promoting Socioeconomic Justice: The judiciary has played a pivotal role in tackling socioeconomic disparities. Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have enabled courts to address critical issues such as bonded labor, environmental preservation, and educational accessibility. Notable achievements include the recognition of the Right to Education (RTE) and the Right to Food through judicial interventions.
The Impact of Judicial Activism on Marginalized Communities: Judicial activism has played a pivotal role in advancing the rights and welfare of marginalized communities, including women, Dalits, and LGBTQ+ individuals. A notable milestone was the landmark judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), which decriminalized homosexuality, thereby upholding the dignity and ensuring equal rights for LGBTQ+ citizens. This progressive decision marked a significant step towards fostering an inclusive and just society.
Environmental Law: The judiciary has also been at the forefront of environmental activism in India. The MC Mehta cases established the foundation for environmental law, promoting sustainable development and ecological equilibrium.
Accountability in Governance: The judiciary’s proactive role has served as a vital check on the executive and legislative branches. Landmark cases such as the 2G spectrum and coal block allocation cases have exposed corruption and inefficiencies within the system, thereby promoting accountability and transparency in governance.
Challenges and Criticisms of Judicial Activism:
Judicial Overreach: One of the most common criticisms of judicial activism is that it frequently crosses the line into judicial overreach. When courts intervene in matters that are primarily the domain of the legislature or executive, it undermines the separation of powers. For instance, judicial decisions directing specific policies, such as bans on firecrackers or regulating festivals, have been criticized as encroaching upon legislative prerogatives.
Potential Misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs): Public Interest Litigations (PILs), a cornerstone of judicial activism, can occasionally be subject to misuse. Frivolous or politically motivated PILs have the potential to overburden the judicial system, divert attention from critical cases, and erode its credibility.
Delayed Resolution of Legal Matters: By engaging in governance-related matters or intervening in policy issues, courts may divert their attention and resources away from their core responsibility of resolving pending cases. This diversion contributes to the persistent problem of delayed justice, resulting in millions of unresolved cases within the Indian legal system.
Ambiguity in the Doctrine of Separation of Powers: The frequent overlap of roles between the judiciary, legislature, and executive branches of government, often caused by judicial activism, creates ambiguity and disrupts the delicate balance envisioned by the doctrine of separation of powers, which is fundamental to the Constitution.
A Prudent Approach:
To ensure judicial activism remains a positive force, a balanced approach is crucial. The judiciary must be cognizant of its constitutional boundaries while addressing pressing societal concerns. Collaborative governance, involving harmonious cooperation among all three branches of government, can enhance democratic principles and ensure equitable justice for all.
Furthermore, the judiciary should prioritize enhancing transparency and accountability within its operations. For instance, establishing uniform guidelines for admitting Public Interest Litigations (PILs) can prevent misuse and preserve the integrity of judicial activism.