Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

Judicial activism refers to the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting the Constitution and laws to protect citizen’s rights, even in areas traditionally handled by the legislature or executive. While judicial activism is praised for its role in protecting individual liberties, it also raises concerns about its impact on the balance of power between the state’s organs-legislature, executive and judiciary.

Body

Judicial Activism Upholding Citizen’s Rights:

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: Judicial activism has been instrumental in expanding the scope of fundamental rights, especially in cases involving social justice and individual freedoms.
  • For example, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the court broadened the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to include the right to live with dignity.
  • Similarly, the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that Parliament cannot modify the constitution's fundamental framework.
• Progressive Jurisprudence: The judiciary has adopted a proactive approach in delivering progressive rulings, as seen in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), where it decriminalized consensual homosexual relations by reading down Section 377.
  • Judicial intervention has been crucial in promoting social justice. The Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, which established guidelines to combat sexual harassment at the workplace, was a case of judicial activism that addressed an issue ignored by the legislature
• Environmental Protection: The judiciary has been active in environmental protection, notably in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case (1996), where the SC issued sweeping directions to protect forests in India.
  • This judicial intervention has often compensated for the inadequate legislative action on pressing environmental issues.

Judicial Activism as a Challenge to Balance of Powers:

• Encroachment on Legislative Domain: Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016), The SC mandated that all cinema halls must play the National Anthem before a film starts.
  • Critics argued this went beyond the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and entered the domain of legislative policy.
  • The court overruled certain section) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, and prohibited the sale of BS-IV vehicles after March, 2020.
    • This decision was criticized for encroaching on policy decisions typically made by the executive and legislature.
• Disruption of the Separation of Powers: Excessive judicial activism can undermine the role of elected representatives and democratic processes by shifting policy-making responsibilities from elected representatives to the judiciary.
  • As seen in cases like Narmada Bachao Andolan, where court intervention encroached on executive decisions.
• Lack of Democratic Accountability: The judiciary lacks direct democratic accountability, and when it makes policy decisions such as framing guidelines through PILs, it risks bypassing the legislature and enacting measures that may not reflect the will of the people.

Way Forward:

• Clarifying Judicial Role: The role of judicial activism should be exercised with restraint, invoked primarily when fundamental rights are at stake or there is evident legislative inaction. E.g., 2017 Right to Privacy judgment, where the judiciary expanded and safeguarded citizens' rights without encroaching upon the domain of the legislature.
• Strengthening Legislature's Accountability: When the legislature takes a proactive approach to addressing pressing societal issues, it reduces the need for judicial intervention, thereby maintaining institutional harmony and respecting the separation of powers.
• Judicial-Executive Cooperation: Courts should engage with the executive and legislature to maintain checks and balances. For example, the Environmental Protection Act (1986), guided by judicial activism, demonstrates how cooperation can result in effective governance.

Conclusion

Judicial activism has played a vital role in protecting citizens' rights, ensuring justice, and filling gaps left by the legislature and executive. However, it also has the potential to disrupt the balance of powers, leading to judicial overreach and undermining democratic accountability. Therefore, while judicial activism is necessary to protect fundamental rights, a careful, balanced approach is needed to maintain the separation of powers and ensure that the judiciary does not encroach upon the functions of the other organs of the state.