Introduction
The Constitution entrusts the judiciary with a direct function. Aspects of that brave imagination and practical prudence include judicial activism and moderation. Thus, the idea of judicial activity is the complete antithesis of judicial restraint. The two phrases used to characterize the idea and reason underlying some court rulings are activism by the judiciary and judicial restraint. Judiciary restraint relies on an inflexible reading of the law and the significance of legal precedent, whereas judicial activism refers, generally speaking, to a theory of judgment that considers both the letter and the spirit of the law.
What exactly is judicial activism?
Judicial activism refers to the judiciary’s proactive role in defending citizen rights and advancing justice in society. Judicial activism is a legal strategy that permits judges to understand the law differently from how it is written or to create fresh laws, principles, or standards. This tactic typically entails applying judicial review to strike down government
actions or laws that are determined to be unconstitutional or to expand on previously acknowledged individual rights.
Indian Judicial Activism
In India, judicial activism has been crucial to maintaining democracy. In India, judicial activism describes how the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, interprets and upholds the law. It denotes that the judiciary is actively engaged in reading the Constitution broadly to uphold social justice and preserve individual rights. The following are some of the main arguments in favor of judicial activism in India:
Individual Rights Defence
Several fundamental rights, including the right to equal treatment, freedom of expression, and the right to a fair trial, are guaranteed to the people of India under the Constitution. By overturning laws and government activities that are found to be unconstitutional and broadening the extent of one’s freedoms above what was previously recognized by law, judicial activism has played a crucial role in defending these rights.
Working for Social Justice
The Indian Supreme Court has taken the initiative to advance social justice, especially by using litigation in the public interest (PIL). It enables people or organizations to file lawsuits in court on behalf of people who have been unable to perform so on their own. Government Accountability Assurance Judicial activism has aided in ensuring that the public holds the government responsible. The judiciary functions as a judicial check upon the authority of both the executive and legislative branches of government by invalidating laws and governmental actions that are found to be
unconstitutional or violate individual rights.
Developing Democracy
Judicial activism has been crucial in advancing India’s democracy. The judiciary aids in ensuring that the government promotes the needs of all citizens, instead of just those who occupy positions of power, by defending individual rights and advancing social justice. Few Case Laws on Judicial Activism A.K. Gopalan vs. the Government of Madras (1950), where a petition for review was filed to ascertain if detention before trial violated Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22, was the first significant case in this area. According to the Supreme Court, judicial review is authorized under the
written Constitution. Despite the challenge’s failure, it resulted in a new tendency in law that
became clear in the period that followed. Justice Gajendragadkar decided in G. Satyanarayana versus Eastern Power Distribution Company in 2004 that if a worker is fired for wrongdoing, an investigation must be done, and
the worker must be given a chance to explain himself. This decision added rules to labor law that the law had been ignoring.
A significant case from 1997 called Vishaka v. the Government of Rajasthan serves as a reminder of the importance of judicial activism. Here, the SC outlined rules that must be
adhered to guarantee fair treatment of women in the workplace. It went on to say that until
Parliament passes laws enforcing gender equality, these principles should be regarded as law.
Judicial Restraint
The concept of judicial interpretation known as “judicial restraint” urges judges to use
discretion while using their authority. According to this, judges shouldn’t overturn legislation
unless they are unlawful. Judges who exercise judicial restraint adhere to the principle of stare
decisis, which calls for maintaining previously decided rulings.
A procedural or substantive method of exercising judicial scrutiny is known as judicial
restraint. The concept of restraint is a procedural doctrine that instructs judges to hold off on
making decisions on legal matters, particularly constitutional ones unless those decisions are
necessary to settle a specific conflict between opposing parties.
Few case laws on Judicial Restraint
The Supreme Court ruled in the matter of S. R. Bommai versus the Union of India in 1994,
that there cannot be a judicial review whenever there is a substantial degree of political stake
included and that the courts shouldn’t be involved.
The Supreme Court refused to give the municipality of Delhi directions on how to purify Delhi
in Almitra H. Patel vs. the Union of India (2000), contending that the topic was beyond its
jurisdiction as well and that all it could have done was request the organization to uphold its
legal commitments.
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Smt. P. Lakshmi Devi, the Supreme Court emphasized once
more that “invalidating legislation is a severe move that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Not just
because this aspect of view is practical, but additionally whenever it is the only one that is
unaffected by the rational issue, can a court declare a law to be unconstitutional?
Difference Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint
The methods used to interpret the Constitution differ among judiciary activism (loose
constructionist) along judicial restraint (strict constructionist). A judge who follows the strict
constructionist theory may interpret the Constitution literally or base their decisions on the
framers’ original intent. A judge who exercises judicial activism may make very general rulings.
The following are the key distinctions between the two:
The interpreting of the Constitution to advance modern principles and conditions is
known as judicial activism. Judiciary restraint, on the other hand, limits the ability of
courts to overturn a law.
Unless they violate the nation’s constitution, the court shall uphold every decision of
Congress and state legislatures while using judicial restraint. In cases of judiciary
activism, the courts often give deference to how Parliament or any other kind of
constitutional body interprets the Constitution.
The objectives of judicial activism alongside judicial restraint are distinct. The balance
between the judiciary, the executive, and legislative departments of government is
maintained by judicial restraint. The judiciary and the court in this instance support
evaluating existing legislation rather than changing it. Judges have the authority to
overturn particular decisions or actions.
Judicial restraint Judges should consider the Constitution’s framers’ original intentions.
Judges who practice judicial activism ought to look beyond the framers’ original
intentions.
Conclusion
Therefore, judicial activism has influenced how the legislation has been interpreted. However,
when judges begin to believe they can solve every social issue and begin to exercise legislative
and executive powers (because they believe the legislature and administration have fallen short
in their responsibilities), a host of issues are certain to appear. Judges can undoubtedly step in
to help in some extreme situations, but they lack the knowledge and resources necessary to
address societal issues on a large scale. Additionally, any such judicial intrusion into the
purview of the legislative or administration will almost always elicit a significant response
from lawmakers and other groups.
References
I. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/judicial-activism-restraintoverreach#:~:text=Judicial%20activism%3A%20interpretation%20of%20the,to
%20strike%20down%20a%20law
II. https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-activism/
III. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2971-judicial-activism-andjudicial-restraint.html
IV. https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2019/Judicial-Activism-and-JudicialRestraint.html
V. https://byjusexamprep.com/upsc-exam/judicial-activism
Rishabh Krishan
Amity University, Jharkhand
