“Judicial activism in India strengthens democracy but risks violating the doctrine of separation of powers. Critically evaluate.” (GS II)

The term “judicial activism” describes the proactive role that courts play in upholding basic rights and interpreting the Constitution. It has frequently made up for legislative and executive delay in India. But it calls into question the separation of powers.

Examples

•  include the MC Mehta cases, which are landmark PILs in environmental protection.
• Article 21 should be expanded to cover the rights to the environment, education, and livelihood.
• Interventions in economic policy or stay orders on government programs are criticised.

Crucial Aspects: 

Although judicial activism guarantees accountability of other branches and increases citizen rights, excessive meddling in policymaking runs the risk of compromising democratic legitimacy and disturbing the constitutional balance.

Future Direction:

•  The court should prioritise protecting fundamental rights and constitutional values without taking the place of government policymaking.
• To lessen the necessity for judicial intervention, the legislature and executive branch must improve governance.
• Interventions in administrative and economic affairs should be guided by judicial discipline and clear self-restraint norms.
• It is possible to guarantee that activism enhances rather than compromises the separation of powers through institutional communication between the three organs.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation

Public Administration Optional Exam Preparation

About the Author: Jyoti Verma