“Judicial activism and judicial overreach are two facets of the same coin. Discuss in the context of Indian democracy.”

Introduction

The term “judicial activism” describes the judiciary’s aggressive efforts to uphold justice, defend rights, and interpret the constitution in ways that go beyond its literal wording. It was formerly defined as “the process of bringing justice within the reach of the common man” by Justice P.N. Bhagwati. Judicial overreach, on the other hand, refers to a circumstance in which the court violates its constitutional mandate and interferes in the legislative or executive branch, upsetting the balance of power.

Constitutional and Theoretical Basis

Articles 32 and 142 of the Indian Constitution, which provide the Supreme Court the authority to uphold fundamental rights and “do complete justice,” are the foundation of judicial activism. Judicial ingenuity in the service of justice is demonstrated by seminal rulings like Vishaka (guidelines on sexual harassment) and Kesavananda Bharati (basic structure theory). The benefits of campaigning are demonstrated by the extension of Article 21 to cover rights like privacy, education, and a clean environment. Through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the judiciary became a tool for social change and further democratised access to justice.

Concerns of Judicial Overreach

However, there has also been criticism of cases of judicial overreach. By limiting fuel usage, outlawing firecrackers, or giving instructions on administrative procedures, courts have occasionally dabbled with policymaking. Judicial supremacy above parliamentary will was the reason for the National Judicial Appointments Commission’s (NJAC) invalidation. In these situations, the judiciary runs the risk of compromising the fundamental tenet of India’s democratic system—the separation of powers.

Critical Analysis

The Indian example demonstrates that although judicial activism has shown to be an effective means of protecting constitutional rights and reining in executive abuses, excessive use of it can erode democratic accountability. While detractors warn that an unelected judiciary cannot take the place of elected legislators, scholars like Upendra Baxi have hailed PIL as the jurisprudence of the poor. Particularly in a democracy whose legitimacy is derived on both popular sovereignty and constitutional morality, striking a balance between activism and restraint is still difficult.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation

Public Administration Optional Exam Preparation

About the Author: Jyoti Verma