Introduction:
Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that advocates for an active role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the law, including the Constitution, to protect the rights of citizens and promote social justice. In India, judicial activism has been a significant force in shaping the country’s legal and political landscape, particularly in the post-independence era. This essay aims to discuss the concept of judicial activism in India, its history, its impact on Indian democracy, and its criticisms.
History of judicial activism in India:
The roots of judicial activism in India can be traced back to the early years of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India, which came into effect on January 26, 1950, established a democratic and secular republic that guaranteed fundamental rights to all citizens. The judiciary was given the responsibility of interpreting and enforcing these rights through the power of judicial review. However, it was not until the 1970s and 1980s that the Indian judiciary began to exercise this power actively.
One of the earliest instances of judicial activism in India was the famous Golaknath case in 1967. In this case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution. This decision was a significant blow to the ruling Congress party, which had been using its majority in Parliament to pass constitutional amendments that curtailed civil liberties. The Golaknath judgment marked a turning point in the history of Indian constitutional law, as it established the supremacy of the Constitution over the Parliament.
Another landmark case that demonstrated the judiciary’s activist spirit in India was the Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s basic structure could not be amended by Parliament. This decision was a significant setback for the Indira Gandhi government, which had been using its majority to pass amendments that expanded its power and curtailed civil liberties. The Kesavananda Bharati judgment reinforced the Golaknath principle and further strengthened the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.
Impact of judicial activism on Indian democracy:
Judicial activism has had a profound impact on Indian democracy. It has helped to protect the rights of citizens, promote social justice, and maintain the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. By interpreting and enforcing the Constitution, the judiciary has acted as a check on the power of the political establishment and ensured that the rule of law prevails over the rule of men.
Judicial activism has also helped to address some of the country’s most pressing social and economic issues. For example, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court issued a series of orders known as the “Right to Food” cases, which mandated that the government provide food and other basic necessities to India’s poorest citizens. Similarly, in the 2000s, the Court issued a series of orders known as the “Right to Education” cases, which mandated that the government provide free and compulsory education to all children aged 6-14 years.
Criticisms of judicial activism:
Despite its many successes, judicial activism in India has also faced criticism. Some argue that the judiciary should not be taking an active role in shaping public policy, as this is the role of the elected representatives. Others have criticized the judiciary for overstepping its bounds and interfering in the executive’s domain. For example, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court issued an order banning the use of loudspeakers in places of worship, which many felt was an encroachment on religious freedom.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, judicial activism has been a significant force in shaping Indian democracy, protecting citizens’ rights, and promoting social justice. While it has faced criticism, its impact on Indian society has been largely positive. As India continues to face new challenges in the 21st century, the role of the judiciary in shaping public policy and protecting citizens’ rights will remain crucial.India is a democratic country with a written constitution that provides for a separation of powers between the three branches of government: the executive, legislative, and judiciary. The judiciary in India has been given a crucial role in interpreting the constitution and ensuring that the government and its agencies do not exceed their authority or violate the rights of citizens. Judicial activism is the term used to describe the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the constitution.
In India, judicial activism has been a controversial topic, with some people arguing that it is necessary to protect the rights of citizens, while others believe that it undermines the democratic process and the authority of elected representatives. This essay will explore the concept of judicial activism in India, its history, its advantages and disadvantages, and the role it plays in shaping the Indian legal system.
History of Judicial Activism in India
The roots of judicial activism in India can be traced back to the early days of the country’s independence, when the Supreme Court of India was established. The court was given the power to interpret the constitution and to strike down laws that were found to be unconstitutional. In the early years, the court was cautious in its approach, and its role was limited to interpreting the law as it stood.
However, in the 1970s, the Indian judiciary began to take a more proactive role in interpreting the constitution and enforcing the rights of citizens. One of the most significant examples of this was the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which is often referred to as the “basic structure doctrine” case. In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that there are certain fundamental features of the constitution that cannot be amended by the parliament, and that any amendment that seeks to change these fundamental features would be unconstitutional.
Since then, the Indian judiciary has continued to play a proactive role in shaping the legal landscape of the country. Some of the other landmark cases that have contributed to the development of judicial activism in India include the Vishaka case (1997), which established guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace, and the Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), which addressed the issue of bonded labor in India.
Advantages of Judicial Activism in India
One of the main advantages of judicial activism in India is that it has helped to protect the rights of citizens, particularly those who are marginalized or disadvantaged. The proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the constitution has ensured that the government and its agencies are held accountable for their actions, and that the rights of citizens are protected.
Judicial activism has also played a crucial role in shaping the legal landscape of India. The Indian judiciary has been proactive in addressing social and economic issues that affect the lives of citizens, such as bonded labor, sexual harassment, and environmental degradation. This has led to the development of a more progressive legal system that is responsive to the needs of the people.
Another advantage of judicial activism in India is that it has helped to promote transparency and accountability in the government. The proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the constitution has ensured that the government and its agencies are held accountable for their actions, and that the rule of law is upheld. This has helped to promote a culture of transparency and accountability in the government, which is essential for the functioning of a democratic society.
Disadvantages of Judicial Activism in India
Despite its advantages, judicial activism in India has also been criticized for undermining the democratic process and the authority of elected representatives. Some people argue that the judiciary should not be taking a proactive role in shaping the legal landscape of the country, and that this should be left to the elected representatives.
Another disadvantage of judicial activism in India is that it can lead to unpredictability in the legal system. The proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the constitution can lead to a situation where the law is constantly changing, which can be confusing for citizens and businesses.
Role of Judicial Activism in Shaping the Indian Legal System
Despite its disadvantages, judicial activism has played a crucial role in shaping the Indian legal system. The proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the constitution has ensured that the government and its agencies are held accountable for their actions, and that the rights of citizens are protected. This has led to the development of a more progressive legal system that is responsive to the needs of the people.
The Indian judiciary has also been proactive in addressing social and economic issues that affect the lives of citizens, such as bonded labor, sexual harassment, and environmental degradation. This has led to the development of a more equitable and just society, where the rights of all citizens are protected.
Conclusion
Judicial activism in India has been a controversial topic, with some people arguing that it is necessary to protect the rights of citizens, while others believe that it undermines the democratic process and the authority of elected representatives. However, despite its disadvantages, judicial activism has played a crucial role in shaping the Indian legal system. The proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the constitution has ensured that the government and its agencies are heldIntroduction:
Judicial activism refers to the judicial interpretation of the Constitution and laws that go beyond their traditional limits. In India, judicial activism has played a significant role in shaping the country’s legal and political landscape. Over the years, Indian courts have delivered landmark judgments that have had a far-reaching impact on society. In this essay, we will discuss the concept of judicial activism in India, its historical development, and its impact on the country’s legal system.
Historical Development of Judicial Activism in India:
The roots of judicial activism in India can be traced back to the early 20th century, when the Indian judiciary started asserting its independence from the colonial government. The first major case of judicial activism in India was the famous ‘Shankari Prasad’ case of 1951, which upheld the constitutionality of the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution. This case marked the beginning of a new era in which the judiciary started playing an active role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution.
The next major development in the history of judicial activism in India was the ‘Kesavananda Bharati’ case of 1973. This case is widely regarded as one of the most significant cases in the history of Indian jurisprudence. The Supreme Court, in this case, delivered a landmark judgment that limited the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. The court held that while Parliament had the power to amend the Constitution, it could not alter its ‘basic structure.’
Since the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Indian judiciary has continued to play an active role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution. Over the years, the courts have delivered several landmark judgments that have had a significant impact on Indian society.
Impact of Judicial Activism on Indian Society:
The impact of judicial activism on Indian society has been far-reaching. Indian courts have delivered several landmark judgments in areas such as human rights, environmental protection, and social justice. Some of the most significant judgments delivered by Indian courts over the years are as follows:
Vishakha v State of Rajasthan (1997): In this case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood was a fundamental right under the Constitution.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (1984): In this case, the Supreme Court set up a committee to investigate bonded labor in India.
MC Mehta v Union of India (1987): In this case, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of several industries in Delhi that were causing pollution.
Naz Foundation v Government of NCT of Delhi (2009): In this case, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality.
These judgments and several others have had a significant impact on Indian society. They have helped to protect the rights of marginalized communities, promote environmental protection, and advance the cause of social justice.
Criticism of Judicial Activism:
While judicial activism has had a significant impact on Indian society, it has also been criticized by some as an overreach of the judiciary. Critics argue that the judiciary should limit its role to interpreting and enforcing the law and not engage in lawmaking or policymaking.
Furthermore, some argue that judicial activism has led to an erosion of the separation of powers between the three branches of government. They argue that the judiciary should not interfere in the domain of the legislature and the executive, as this would upset the delicate balance of power between the three branches of government.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, judicial activism has played a significant role in shaping the legal and political landscape of India. Indian courts have delivered landmark judgments that have had a far-reaching impact on society. While there are valid concerns about the role of the judiciary in policymaking and lawmaking, it is clear that judicial activism has been instrumental in protecting the rights of marginalized communities, promoting environmental protection, and advancing the cause of social justice. The challenge for the Indian judiciary going forward will be to strike a balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint, ensuring that the judiciary remains an independent and impartial arbiter of justice.
