Mains Marathon 2024

Approach Briefly introduce the relationship between judicial activism and parliamentary democracy. Discuss whether it has undermined or strengthened democratic governance Conclude Suitably

Introduction

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting laws and addressing social issues, often stepping beyond traditional boundaries to protect rights and promote justice. This activism has had a profound impact on parliamentary democracy, influencing its functioning in both positive and negative ways.

Body

Judicial Activism Strengthening Democratic Governance

• Protection of Fundamental Rights:
  • Judicial Review: The judiciary has played a crucial role in upholding and protecting fundamental rights through judicial review.
    • In Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), the apex court of India declared that the executive had no right to intercede and tamper with the basic structure of the constitution which reinforced the supremacy of the Constitution and safeguarded citizens' rights against potential abuses by other branches of government.
  • Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PILs have enabled the judiciary to address issues affecting large sections of society, including environmental protection, social justice, and the rights of marginalized groups.
  • This approach has helped ensure that the government remains accountable and responsive to the needs of its citizens.
• Strengthening Institutional Accountability:
  • Judicial Oversight: Through judicial activism, the judiciary has held the executive accountable for its actions.
    • For instance, in Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain(1975), the judiciary intervened to ensure fair electoral practices, demonstrating its role in maintaining the integrity of democratic processes.
• Reforms and Directions: Courts have issued directives to the executive to implement reforms, such as in the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India(1997), which led to the creation of the Central Vigilance Commission to tackle corruption.
• Advancement of Social Justice:
  • Women's Empowerment: Judicial activism has played a pivotal role in advancing women's rights and empowerment in India.
    • In the Vishaka & Others vs. State of Rajasthan case(1997), the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
  • Directive Principles: The judiciary has interpreted Directive Principles of State Policy to promote social and economic justice, thereby enhancing the role of the state in addressing inequalities.
    • For example, the judiciary's interpretation of the right to education as a fundamental right has led to significant policy changes and improved educational access.

Judicial Activism Potentially Undermining of Democratic Governance

• Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that judicial activism sometimes leads to judicial overreach, where the judiciary encroaches upon the domains of the legislature and executive.
  • In response to a PIL on road safety, the Supreme Court banned the sale of liquor within 500 meters of national and state highways. This decision lacked evidence linking the ban to reduced highway deaths and resulted in significant revenue loss for state governments and job losses. Critics viewed this judgment as judicial overreach, arguing that it involved administrative matters best handled by the executive.
• Undermining Parliamentary Sovereignty: By frequently intervening in policy matters and directing the government to take specific actions, the judiciary may undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This can create tensions between the judiciary and elected representatives, potentially affecting the balance of power.
  • The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to change the process of judicial appointments. Critics argued this was an overreach into the domain of the legislature and the executive.
• Lack of Judicial Legitimacy: Unlike elected representatives, judges are not directly accountable to the electorate. Thus, judicial decisions, especially those affecting policy, may lack democratic legitimacy.
  • The Supreme Court canceled 214 coal block allocations made since 1993, leading to significant economic implications. Critics argued that this decision encroached upon executive and legislative functions.
• Pressure on Legislature: Judicial activism can exert pressure on the legislature to enact laws in response to judicial directives. While this can lead to beneficial reforms, it may also result in hastily drafted legislation or reactive policymaking, which might not be well-considered or fully debated.
  • The Supreme Court imposed restrictions on the sale and use of firecrackers to curb pollution during Diwali. Some saw this as judicial overreach, affecting cultural practices and economic activities.

Conclusion 

The Indian Constitution provides for a system of checks and balances where the judiciary, legislature, and executive have distinct but overlapping functions.While judicial activism has played a crucial role in ensuring accountability and protecting rights, it also necessitates careful balancing to avoid overreach and maintain the equilibrium of power.