MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in interpreting and applying laws to address societal issues, often stepping beyond traditional judicial boundaries to enforce rights and ensure justice. In India, this approach has enabled courts to uphold constitutional mandates and protect individual liberties, especially when other branches of government have been inactive or ineffective. Judicial activism often involves the judiciary making decisions that lead to social, economic, or political change, thereby playing a crucial role in the dynamic interpretation of the Constitution.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION

The concept of judicial activism in India gained prominence post-Emergency (1975-1977), a period marked by significant governmental overreach. Judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati pioneered this movement, introducing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to make justice more accessible. The case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979 AIR 1369) exemplifies this shift, where the Supreme Court addressed the plight of undertrial prisoners, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial as part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA

Judicial activism in India operates within the constitutional framework, primarily through:

• Article 13: Empowers courts to declare laws void if they contravene fundamental rights.
• Article 32: Grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.

These provisions enable the judiciary to review legislative and executive actions, ensuring they align with constitutional principles.

GUIDELINES / RULES / REGULATIONS / NOTIFICATIONS / CIRCULARS

The judiciary has, over time, established guidelines to facilitate judicial activism:

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Allows individuals or groups to file petitions on behalf of those unable to do so, broadening access to justice. The Supreme Court, in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149), liberalized the locus standi principle, enabling social action groups to file PILs.
• Vishaka Guidelines: In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, filling a legislative void until appropriate laws were enacted.

CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS

Several landmark cases illustrate judicial activism in India:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461): Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597): Expanded the interpretation of Article 21, asserting that the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to travel abroad, and any procedure depriving a person of this right must be fair, just, and reasonable.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 SCR (1) 819): The Supreme Court introduced the concept of absolute liability for industries engaged in hazardous activities, holding them accountable for any harm resulting from their operations.

DOCTRINES / THEORIES

Judicial activism in India is underpinned by several doctrines:

• Basic Structure Doctrine: Asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution are inviolable and cannot be amended by the Parliament. This doctrine was established in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
• Doctrine of Separation of Powers: While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly delineate the separation of powers, the judiciary has interpreted and enforced this principle to maintain checks and balances among the three branches of government. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975 Supp SCC 1), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of this doctrine in maintaining the Constitution’s basic structure.

MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES

Judicial activism often invokes certain legal maxims and principles:

• “Salus populi suprema lex”: The welfare of the people is the supreme law.
• “Ubi jus ibi remedium”: Where there is a right, there is a remedy.

These principles guide the judiciary in ensuring that justice prevails, especially in cases where existing laws may be inadequate.

AMENDMENTS / ADDITIONS / REPEALING

Judicial activism has influenced legislative changes in India:

• Right to Information Act, 2005: Judicial pronouncements emphasizing transparency and accountability contributed to the enactment of this law.
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Judicial recognition of women’s rights and the need for protective legislation spurred the creation of this act.

CRITICISM / APPRECIATION

While judicial activism has been lauded for upholding rights and ensuring justice, it has also faced criticism:

• Appreciation: It has democratized access to justice, addressed governmental inaction, and safeguarded fundamental rights.
• Criticism: Critics argue that it leads to judicial overreach, encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and executive, potentially disrupting the balance of power.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

Judicial activism manifests differently across countries:

• United States: The U.S. Supreme Court has a history of judicial activism, notably in cases like Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483), which ended racial segregation in public schools.
• United Kingdom: The UK follows the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, limiting judicial activism. However, courts have engaged in judicial review to ensure that executive actions comply with… (content continues as per your original text).