Judicial Activism - Concept, Evolution, Significance and Criticism

Judicial activism may be understood as an attempt by the judges to change things and facilitate justice. The judges have an important position in our justice system. They interpret the law and rule in cases. However, at times they do not limit themselves to the mere application of the law as it stands. They may do more than this. They make rulings that carry greater consequences for society. Judicial activism is thus referred to in such instances. They may interpret the law in a wide and expansive manner to respond to new and changing issues. For instance, they may safeguard the rights of marginalized communities.

Understanding judicial activism is important because it affects how laws are made and how they impact our lives. In the following sections, we'll delve deeper into the concept of judicial activism and its implications. 

Judicial Activism is a part of the Indian Polity subject in the Mains General Studies Paper-II syllabus. It is also a part of the General Studies Paper-1 of the UPSC Prelims Syllabus.

In this article, we shall study judicial activism in detail, as required for the UPSC exam. The UPSC aspirants can take the help of Testbook's UPSC CSE Coaching. You can also study other important topics related to UPSC IAS Exams with Testbook!

Click on this link to download the Polity Notes for UPSC!

What is Judicial Activism?

Judicial activism refers to the behavior of judges when they interpret and apply laws in a way that goes beyond what is clearly written in the Constitution or other legal documents. Judicial activism means that a judge is more likely to decide on constitutional issues. He may reject government actions. It can describe how a judge reviews cases or makes decisions. Judicial activism often involves challenging laws made by the government.

• Judges are people who decide legal cases and make sure laws are followed.
• Judicial activism happens when judges make decisions that change or create new laws. It is not just about applying existing ones.
• Instead of sticking strictly to what the law says, judges use their own beliefs and values to shape their decisions.
  • This can mean expanding or reinterpreting the meaning of words in the law to fit their own ideas.
• Judicial activism can have both positive and negative effects.
  • Supporters say it allows judges to protect individual rights and make the law fairer.
  • Critics say it goes against the proper role of judges. It can undermine the power of elected officials to make laws.
• Sometimes, judicial activism is controversial and leads to debates and disagreements.

Click on the link to download the notes on the National Judicial Council for UPSC!

Judicial activism refers to judges interpreting and using the law in a way that goes beyond what is written and what has been done before. They actively shape public policy with their decisions. 

Here are some common ways judges engage in judicial activism:

Broad Interpretation of the Constitution

Some judges interpret the constitution broadly, considering how society and culture have changed. They focus on the principles and values of the constitution, not just what the framers originally meant.

Creative Statutory Interpretation

Judges may interpret laws creatively to address current social issues. They may stretch the law's wording. They might also use techniques like purposive interpretation to achieve desired outcomes. 

Expansion of Constitutional Rights

Activist judges may expand constitutional rights beyond what they were initially known to be. They might identify new rights or make existing ones broader. By this, they safeguard marginalized groups or tackle fresh social issues. 

Judicial review and striking down laws

Activist judges review laws made by the government to see if they follow the Constitution. They try to get rid of laws that they think violate constitutional rights or principles.

Policy-Based Reasoning

Judicial activism often refers to the following:

• judges making decisions to support specific policy goals or 
• judges making decisions to fix perceived social injustices. 

They think about the wider impact and results of their decisions. It is not just about the specific case they are working on.

Public Interest Litigation 

Judges encourage public interest litigation. Here individuals or organizations bring cases to advocate for social or policy changes. This lets judges get involved in matters that might not have gone to court before. This makes a bigger impact on policies and social issues. 

Click on the link to download the notes on the Judiciary under British India for UPSC!

Significance of Judicial Activism

Following are some of the significances of judicial activism:

Protection of Fundamental Rights

Judicial activism protects basic rights in case of negligence by the legislature or the executive. It protects citizens from abusive government measures by intervening when there is violation of their rights. Judicial activism supports democracy.

Strengthening Constitutional Values

The courts ensure the spirit of the Constitution is honored by bundling together the various enactments for updating them to what people need in that decade. Judicial activism does achieve the idea of democratic justice and rule of law, thus prevailing in India.

Providing Justice to Marginalized Sections

Judicial activism ensures that vulnerable and marginalized communities receive justice. Courts use tools like Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to address issues affecting weaker sections of society.

Promoting Good Governance

By ensuring accountability, judicial activism improves governance. Courts intervene when government actions are arbitrary or unconstitutional, compelling authorities to function transparently and responsibly.

Addressing Legislative and Executive Failures

Judicial activism in interpretation of statutes helps when laws are ambiguous or outdated. Courts step in to interpret laws effectively, ensuring legal clarity and protecting the rule of law.

Click on the link to download the notes on Judicial Review for UPSC!

Here are the key points about the evolution of judicial activism in India:

• The Indian judiciary was largely passive in the early years of independence. It had a very limited role to play.
• With time, the judiciary started taking a more active approach, especially during the 1970s and 1980s. 
  • In the 1970s, many judges began to take a more active role in shaping the law and public policy.
• The Supreme Court of India began interpreting the Constitution in a broader way. It gave importance to fundamental rights and social justice.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was introduced in the 1980s. This allowed people to go to court on behalf of those who were treated unfairly.
• One of the most famous examples of judicial activism in India is the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
  • The decision, in this case, marked a turning point in the evolution of judicial activism in India.
  • Since then, the Indian judiciary has become active in shaping the law and public policy.
• Judicial activism has been a controversial issue in India. However, there is no doubt that judicial activism has played a significant role in shaping the law and public policy in India.

Here are some of the key events in the evolution of judicial activism in India:

Click on the link to download the notes on the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for UPSC!

Pros & Cons of Judicial Activism

Here are the pros and cons of judicial activism:

Pros of Judicial Activism

Some of the advantages of judicial activism include the following:

• Judicial activism helps ensure that people's rights are upheld and that everyone is treated fairly.
• It helps prevent discrimination and unfair treatment, promoting equal rights for all.
• Judicial activism allows the court to address new challenges. It helps it to adapt laws to fit the current circumstances.
• It helps maintain a balance of power among different branches of government. This prevents any one branch from becoming too powerful.
• Judicial activism holds the government accountable for its actions. It ensures that the government follows the law and respects the rights of individuals.

Cons of Judicial Activism

Some of the disadvantages of judicial activism include the following:

• Judges may go beyond their role and make decisions based on personal opinions instead of the law itself.
• Judicial activism might interfere with the democratic process. It allows judges to make decisions instead of elected representatives.
• Some believe that judges should stick closely to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution. Activism may result in decisions without proper checks and balances.
• Judicial activism may lead to delays in the legislative process. Courts intervention in policy matters potentially hinders effective governance.
• When judges play an active role, there is a risk of inconsistency in their decisions. Different judges may interpret laws differently.

Click on the link to download the notes on the Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for UPSC!

Judicial Activism Criticism

Some of the criticisms against judicial activism include the following:

Judicial activism is a dangerous overreach of judicial power.

• Judges are not elected officials. Hence, they are not accountable to the people in the same way that elected officials are. 
• When judges strike down laws that they disagree with, they are essentially making the law themselves. This can lead to uncertainty and instability in the law. 
• It is not clear who has the ultimate authority to make law.

Judicial activism can be used to promote the personal views of judges.

• Judges are human beings and have their own personal beliefs and values. 
• It can be difficult to tell whether judges struck down laws because they believe the law is unconstitutional or because they simply disagree with the law's policy. 

Judicial activism can lead to a decline in public trust in the judiciary.

• Judges take an active role in shaping the law. This can lead to a perception that the judiciary is not impartial and is not acting in the best interests of the people. 
• This can make it more difficult for the judiciary to carry out its essential functions. This includes resolving disputes and upholding the rule of law.

Click on the link to download the notes on Juristic Person for UPSC!

Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint 

Here's a comparison between judicial activism and judicial restraint:

Judicial Activism	Judicial Restraint
Judges interpret the Constitution broadly and adapt it to changing times.	Judges interpret the Constitution strictly according to its original meaning.
Judges may make new laws or change existing ones to address societal issues.	Judges defer to the legislative branch to make and change laws.
Judges actively intervene in matters of public policy and social change.	Judges avoid getting involved in political or policy matters and focus on interpreting the law.
Judges have a more flexible approach and may challenge existing precedents.	Judges follow established precedents and are reluctant to overturn them.
Judges are more likely to protect individual rights and promote equality.	Judges prioritize the separation of powers and respect the role of other branches of government.

Difference between judicial activism and judicial overreach 

The below table outlines the differences between judicial activism and judicial overreach:

Judicial Activism	Judicial Overreach
Judges play an active role in shaping laws.	Judges exceed their authority and make decisions beyond their role.
It aims to protect rights and promote justice.	It involves judges making decisions based on personal preferences rather than the law.
It ensures a balance of power among branches of government.	It disrupts the balance of power by encroaching on the authority of other branches of government.
It interprets laws in a broader and more flexible manner.	It interprets laws in a way that goes against their original intent or the Constitution.
It is seen as an important aspect of the judicial role.	It is viewed as exceeding the limits of the judicial role.

Click on the link to download the notes on Sealed Cover Jurisprudence for UPSC!

Conclusion

Judicial activism is when judges play an active role in making decisions that shape the law. Some people think it's good as it helps protect people's rights and bring about change. Others argue that judges should stick to interpreting laws, not making them. Judicial activism can have both positive and negative effects on society. Protecting people's rights and at the same time respecting the role of other branches of government is necessary. It's important to strike a balance between them. Judicial activism can be a powerful tool for change, but it's crucial for judges to be fair and follow the Constitution.

Testbook provides a set of comprehensive notes for several competitive exams. Testbook is always on the top of the list owing to its best quality assured products. Testbook's products include live tests, mocks, Content pages, GK, and current affairs videos. To study more topics for UPSC, download the Testbook App now.