Sambhav-2025

Approach Define Judicial Activism and its role in governance. Analyze both positive and negative impacts on governance with examples. Examine whether it blurs the separation of powers with arguments for and against. Conclude with a balanced view on judicial activism and constitutional harmony.

Introduction

Judicial Activism refers to proactive judicial interventions where courts interpret laws expansively to uphold constitutional values, rights, and governance principles. It has played a crucial role in India by addressing executive failures, policy gaps, and protecting fundamental rights. However, concerns arise over whether it violates the separation of powers, a fundamental doctrine enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Body

Judicial Activism and its Impact on Governance:

• Strengthens democracy by ensuring accountability: Judicial activism compels executive and legislative bodies to perform their constitutional duties, ensuring good governance.
  • Example: In Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace, filling a legislative void.
• Upholds fundamental rights and social justice: It safeguards citizen rights, particularly for marginalized groups, by directing policy changes when other organs fail.
  • Example: The Right to Food case (PUCL v. Union of India, 2001) led to strengthening the Public Distribution System (PDS) and mid-day meal schemes.
• Environmental governance and sustainable development: Courts have taken proactive steps in environmental protection, enforcing policies where the executive has been inadequate.
  • Example: The Taj Trapezium Case (MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1996) resulted in relocating polluting industries near the Taj Mahal.
• Legalizing new rights and expanding policy frameworks: Judicial activism has been instrumental in recognizing progressive rights in the absence of specific laws.
  • Example: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalized Section 377, ensuring LGBTQ+ rights.

Judicial Activism Blurring Separation of Powers

• Judicial encroachment into executive and legislative domains: Courts, through judicial activism, sometimes issue directives that fall within policy-making, traditionally the legislature’s domain.
  • Example: In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court clarified the powers of the Delhi government, but some argued it interfered in executive matters.
• Violation of the separation of powers doctrine: Article 50 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) emphasizes the independence of the judiciary but judicial activism may create an imbalance.
  • Example: In Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016), the court mandated playing the national anthem in cinemas, which was later modified, raising concerns over judicial overreach.
• Judicial overreach versus legitimate activism: While activism upholds rights, judicial overreach occurs when courts directly legislate or administer policies.
  • Example: The Supreme Court’s ban on liquor sales along highways (2016) was seen as excessive interference in policy-making and state revenue matters.
• Need for institutional checks and balances: Excessive judicial intervention can undermine executive efficiency and legislative intent, weakening democratic accountability.
  • Example: In Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), the court laid down guidelines on passive euthanasia, which ideally should have been a legislative prerogative.

Conclusion

Judicial activism has played a transformative role in governance by enforcing constitutional rights and executive accountability. However, excessive intervention risks disturbing the delicate balance of powers. A well-defined approach to self-restraint and judicial discipline is essential to ensure harmonious governance while respecting institutional boundaries.