JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

• Proactive role of judiciary in protecting rights and promoting justice.
• Judges may allow personal interpretations to shape judgments instead of strictly following law.
• Considered “judicial dynamism”; opposite of “judicial restraint”.
• Closely linked with Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism
• Judicial review: Court examines constitutionality of laws.
• Judicial activism: Courts go beyond review & influence policy; expand rights, enforce duties.
• Activism is inherent in review but goes further.
• Expanded “locus standi” through PIL broadened judicial reach.

Need for Judicial Activism
• Ensures accountability of legislature & executive.
• Protects core rights when other arms fail.
• Upholds constitutional values and fills policy gaps.

Examples of Judicial Activism
• Golak Nath Case (1967)
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine
• Maneka Gandhi Case (1978)
• Vishaka Case (1997) – Workplace sexual harassment guidelines

Drivers of Judicial Activism
• Civil rights activists
• Consumer rights groups
• Anti‑bonded labour movements
• Environmental groups
• Child and women rights organisations

Concerns About Judicial Activism
• May lead to ideological bias
• Risk of judiciary making policy without accountability
• Overreach into executive and legislative domains

Judicial Restraint
• Judges avoid interfering with policy; stick to interpreting law.
• No judgments based on personal, political or religious beliefs.
• Supreme Court has reminded courts to avoid taking over functions of legislature/executive.
• Emphasizes separation of powers and institutional balance.

---

PDF File:

No PDF attached

---

Subject: Polity

← Back