Judicial Activism in India

Share & spread the love

Judicial activism is a significant feature of the Indian legal system, representing the proactive role of the judiciary in ensuring justice and upholding the Constitution. It empowers courts, especially the Supreme Court and High Courts, to intervene in matters where executive or legislative actions have failed or where fundamental rights have been violated. Judicial activism is both a tool to rectify governance issues and a means to protect democratic principles. While it has been a catalyst for change, judicial activism has also sparked debates on the balance of power between the judiciary, legislature, and executive.

Meaning and Scope of Judicial Activism

Judicial activism implies a proactive role by the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of citizens and promoting justice in society. It often involves interpreting the Constitution expansively to ensure the effective functioning of democracy. Judicial activism enables courts to:

  • Address governance failures.
  • Protect fundamental rights.
  • Ensure adherence to constitutional principles.
  • Act as a watchdog over the actions of the legislature and executive.

The scope of judicial activism is vast and encompasses areas such as environmental protection, human rights, social justice, and governance reform.

Origin of Judicial Activism

The concept of judicial activism originated in the United States, with the term first coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947. In India, judicial activism emerged during the post-independence era, influenced by the principles of justice embedded in the Constitution. Prominent jurists such as Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, and Justice D.A. Desai laid the foundation of judicial activism in India. They emphasised the judiciary’s role in ensuring social justice and addressing systemic inefficiencies.

Evolution of Judicial Activism in India

Early Years (1950–1970): The Classical Judiciary

In the initial years after independence, the judiciary was primarily technocratic, focusing on procedural justice. Judges were reluctant to explore creative interpretations of the law. However, this changed with landmark cases like A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), where the judiciary recognised its role in constitutional interpretation.

1970–2000: The Era of Activism

During the 1970s and 1980s, judicial activism gained prominence as the judiciary responded to issues of corruption, executive inefficiency, and legislative inertia. The conflict between the judiciary and the executive during Indira Gandhi’s tenure catalysed this shift. Landmark judgments such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, preventing the legislature from amending the Constitution’s fundamental features.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) emerged as a powerful tool during this period, enabling marginalised groups to seek justice without procedural barriers. Cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) showcased the judiciary’s commitment to expanding fundamental rights.

2000–Present: Flourishing Activism

Judicial activism has continued to thrive, addressing issues like environmental degradation, women’s rights, and governance reforms. While the judiciary’s proactive stance has led to significant societal changes, concerns about judicial overreach and the disruption of separation of powers have also emerged.

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Activism

Judicial activism derives its authority from several provisions of the Indian Constitution:

  1. Article 32: Empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Recognised as the “right to constitutional remedies,” it is a cornerstone of judicial activism.
  2. Article 226: Grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. Broader in scope than Article 32, allowing intervention in matters beyond fundamental rights.
  3. Article 136: Provides the Supreme Court with discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal against decisions of lower courts or tribunals. 
  4. Article 142: Enables the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any case.

Landmark Cases of Judicial Activism

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that the essential framework of the Constitution remains unaltered. The judiciary affirmed its authority to review constitutional amendments, safeguarding democracy by restricting the legislature from amending fundamental principles such as rule of law, separation of powers, and fundamental rights.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), holding that any procedure depriving an individual of life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. This judgment was pivotal in transforming the understanding of fundamental rights, introducing the principle of substantive due process, and affirming personal freedoms as paramount in a democratic society.

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)

The Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar highlighted the inhumane treatment of undertrial prisoners, many of whom were detained for periods exceeding the maximum punishment for their alleged offences. By declaring the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21, the judiciary reinforced its role in ensuring justice for marginalised and vulnerable populations, initiating reforms in the criminal justice system.

Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983)

In Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra case, a journalist’s letter to the Supreme Court about custodial violence against women prisoners was treated as a writ petition. The Court’s intervention underscored its commitment to human rights and social justice, establishing the judiciary as a protector of the most vulnerable sections of society.

Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan case resulted in the formulation of the Vishakha Guidelines to address sexual harassment at the workplace. The Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of a safe working environment for women, asserting that gender equality is intrinsic to fundamental rights. This judgment paved the way for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, highlighting the judiciary’s proactive role in addressing societal issues.

These landmark judgments illustrate the judiciary’s transformative role in safeguarding fundamental rights, ensuring social justice, and maintaining the democratic ethos of India. Judicial activism, through these cases, has significantly shaped Indian jurisprudence and reinforced the rule of law.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A Catalyst for Judicial Activism

PIL emerged as a significant facet of judicial activism, allowing individuals and groups to seek justice on behalf of the public interest. Judges like Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer were instrumental in popularising PILs. Key PIL cases include:

Judicial Activism and Environmental Jurisprudence

The judiciary’s proactive stance in environmental protection has led to groundbreaking rulings:

  • Rural Litigation Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985): Introduced the concept of sustainable development.
  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Established the absolute liability principle for hazardous industries.
  • Arjun Gopal v. Union of India (2018): Restricted the use of fireworks to protect public health.

Women’s Rights and Judicial Activism

Judicial activism has significantly contributed to women’s empowerment:

  • Air India v. Nargesh Meerza (1981): Invalidated discriminatory rules against air hostesses.
  • Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Established guidelines for workplace safety.
  • Laxmi v. Union of India (2015): Imposed strict regulations on acid sales to combat acid attacks.

Conclusion

Judicial activism in India has been instrumental in addressing governance failures, protecting fundamental rights, and promoting social justice. While it has played a transformative role, it must operate within the constitutional framework to maintain the balance of power among the three organs of government. Striking a balance between judicial activism and restraint is essential to uphold the principles of democracy and ensure effective governance.

Judicial activism remains a dynamic and evolving feature of India’s legal landscape, reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to justice and constitutional values. As the nation continues to grapple with complex socio-political challenges, judicial activism will likely remain a pivotal force in shaping India’s democratic journey.


Author Details: N. Venkata Padma Anuhya (GITAM School of Law), edited by Ms. Aishwarya Agrawal.

 


Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 1+ lakhs students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the biggest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LawBhoomi
Upgrad