JUDICIAL ACTIVISM : ITS IMPACT ON DEMOCRACY

 

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM : ITS IMPACT ON DEMOCRACY

 

This Article is written by - Aanya Shukla CMP Degree College (UoA) , BA.LL.B (Hons.) 1st year,C.M.P Degree College, University of Allahabad.

 

Abstract

Judicial Activism is the Pro-active role^[1] played by the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens and ensuring justice. When the other branches of the government fail to do so. It allows courts to step beyond traditional roles and take bold decisions in the interest of the public. In democratic countries like India Judicial Activism has helped in strengthening democracy upholding constitutional values, empowering the weak , and holding the government accountable . This article discusses the meaning, reasons and impact of judicial activism on democracy in a simple and understandable way .

Introduction

In a democracy like India , the Constitution gives power to the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary to work independently . Among them , the Judiciary plays a very important role in practicing the Constitution and the rights of the people.

Sometimes,the government or lawmakers fail to do their duty properly. In such cases , the court steps in and takes actions that are necessary for justice. This active role taken by the court is called Judicial Activism.

Thus, Judicial Activism is a powerful way through which the Judiciary helps improve society and strengthen democracy.

What is Judical Activism

Judicial Activism means that judges are their powers creatively to protect the rights of the people and promote justice , even if there is no clear law about a situation.

It goes beyond just reading the law. The judges use their constitutional powers to interpret laws and deliver justice and especially in the absence of clear laws.

One important way Judicial Activism happens is through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) , where any person can approach the court on behalf of someone whose rights are being violated.

Example Of Judicial Activism

-: Vishakha vs. State Of Rajasthan (1997)^[2]

Issue -:  No law to protect women from sexual harassment at the work place.

JUDICIAL DECISION

 

The Supreme Court created the “Vishakha Guidelines” to protect women from sexual harassment at work.

This was later used to form a proper law. This Sexual harassment of women at workplace act, 2013.

 

-: M.C Mehta vs. Union of India (1986-onwards)^[3]

Issue -: Pollution and Environmental damage.

JUDICIAL ACTION

The Supreme Court passed several orders to protect the Taj Mahal, clean  the Ganga river, and control air pollution in Delhi.

This case helped in improving environmental laws and awareness.

-: Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979)^[4]

 

Issue -:  poor prisoners kept in jail for years without trial.

JUDICIAL ACTION

The Court said that the Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article -21.

Thousand of undertrial prisoners were released.

-: Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)^[5]

Issue -: Slum dwellers being evicted without notice.

JUDICIAL ACTION

The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life Under Article -21 of the Constitution.

 

-: Right to food Case (PUCL vs. Union of India , 2001^[6]

Issue -:  Starvation deaths while food was in godowns.

JUDICIAL ACTION

The Court directed the government to properly implement food schemes.

It converted food assistance into a legal right for the poor.

 

Why Judicial Activism happens

Judicial activism happens when courts go beyond their normal role of only applying laws. It usually takes place when other branches of government (like parliament or Executive) fail to do their job properly.

 

The main reason why judicial activism happens:-

 

Failure of Legislature and Execution

Sometimes the government or parliament does not make proper laws or take action on important issues. Then, the court steps in to protect the rights of people.

Example-: Vishakha Case

No law for sexual harassment at workpalce, so the court made guidelines.

 

To Protect Fundamental Rights

If people's basic rights (like life, liberty and equality) are in danger , the court takes active steps to protect them.

Example -: Right to Food Case

The court ensured food for poor people

To Fill Legal Gaps

Filling legal gaps refers to situations where court steps in to create rules or give interpretation because there is no specific law or the existing law is unclear or insufficient.

Example -: Guidelines for police reforms before any law was made.

 

Public Intrest Litigation

Judicial Activism often comes through PILs, where anyone can approach the court for public welfare - even if the person is not directly affected.

Example -: Environmental cases like pollution control or cleaning rivers.

 

To Maintain Rule Of Law

If the government or officials act against the Constitution or law, courts take action to stop misuse of power and protect democracy.

 

Lack of Accountability in Government

When elected leaders or officers are corrupt , inactive or unfair , courts try to ensure justice and fairness by stepping in.

 

Awareness and Rising Expectations of Citizens

Today, people are more aware of their rights. They approach the courts more often, which leads to Judicial Activism.

 

IMPACT OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON DEMOCRACY ^[7]

Judicial Activism has both posting and negative effects on democracy. It has played a very important role in protecting people’s rights, maintaining the rule of law and improving governance. But at the same time, it has also raised questions about overreach and imbalance of power.

 

-: Positive Impacts of Judicial Activism on Democracy

Protection of Fundamental Rights

●       Judicial Activism ensures that the rights of citizens are not violated.

●       Courts have explained the meaning of Article 21 (Right to life) to Include livelihood , education, clean environment and more.

●       It helps people - especially the poor, marginalised and voiceless- get justice.

Example -:  In the right of food case, the court declared food as a part of the right to life and made the government implement food distribution schemes.

 

Accountability of Government

●       When the Executive or Legislature fails to act or becomes corrupt , tje judiciary steps in.

●       This keeps the government accountable and reminds them that they are not above the law.

Example -: In the 2G spectrum case, the court cancelled licenses that were given unfairly.

 

Filling Legal Gaps

 

●       Sometimes , there is no clear law for an issue. Judicial Activism helps by issuing guidelines or new interpretations.

●       This makes sure that justice is not delayed due to lack of law.

Example -:  In the Vishaka Case , the court made rules for sexual harassment at the work place until parliament passed law.

 

Promotion of Public Interest

●       Through Public Interest Litigations ( PIL) , courts have taken up matters related to the environment, education, health and social justice.

●       These decisions have led to improvement in public life and governance.

Example -: Orders for air pollution control in Delhi, banning of harmful crackers, e.t.c.

 

Strengthening the Rule Of Law

 

●       Judicial activism ensures that every person, including the government follows the law.

●       It prevents arbitrary and illegal actions by those in power.

Supports For Social Justice and Reforms

●       Courts have played a major role in uplifting weaker sections  of society.

●       Activist Judgement have supported gender equality , child rights, minority protection and much more.

 

Negative Impacts/ Concerns of Judicial Activism on Democracy

Judicial Overreach

●       Sometimes courts go beyond their powers and start making policies or interfering in administrative work.

●       This weakens the separation of power, which is the foundation of democracy.

Example -: Courts giving orders on school timings, firecracker rules or diet in jails can be seen as interference.

 

Undemocratic Decision Making

 

●       Judges are not elected by the people , but through activism , they sometimes make decisions that affect large sections of society.

●       This can be seen as undemocratic because it bypasses elected lawmakers.

 

Delay in Regular Class

●       Courts taking too many PILs or Social cases may delay normal cases like criminal trials, civil disputes e.t.c.

●       It adds to the burden on already crowded courts.

 

Policy Confusion

 

When courts start making rules , it may confuse the government or conflict with existing laws, causing delay in proper implementation.

 

Risk of Misuse

Judicial activism depends on judges' personal understanding. If misused ,it  may lead to biased decisions or unstable legal interpretation.

 

Criticism And Concerns Regarding Judicial Activism

While Judicial Activism has many benefits , it is not free from criticism:-

 

JUDICIAL OVERREACH

Sometimes , the judiciary crosses its limits and starts performing the role of  the Executive or Legislature . This is called judicial overreach, and it can disturb the balance of power.

 

UNDEMOCRATIC DECISIONS

Judges are not elected by the people , but they sometimes make decisions that affect policies and laws , which should ideally be the work of elected representatives.

 

INCONSISTENT JUDGEMENT

Some critics argue that judicial activism is based on personal views of  judges , which may not always be consistent or fair.

 

BURDAN ON JUDICIARY

Taking up too many PILs or social issues may divert attention from regular cases and delay justice.

 

Differences Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Judicial Activism	Judicial Restraint
Courts take a proactive role in governance.	Courts stick to traditional interpretation.
Promote justice even beyond Written laws.	Avoid interfering in matters of other organs.
Encourages innovation in legal interpretation	Focuses on stability and consistentcy.

Judicial Activism vs. Seperation of Powers

-: Theoretical Basis of Seperation of Powers

The theory of Separation of powers most famously articulated by Montesquieu in his book The spirit of law (1748). He argued that Political liberty is best preserved when the three organs of the state - Legislature, Executive and Judiciary - operate independently and check each - others power.

In constitutional democracies like India, the US and others, this theory is a guiding principle, though in practice , it is often not strictly followed.

 

Theoretical Justification of Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism is based on the living Constitution theory - the belief that constitutional interpretation must evolve with changing times and social needs.

This approach is dynamic rather than static :-

●       It is closely linked with liberal constitutionalism , where courts are seen as guardians of fundamental rights as instruments of Social justice.

●       Judicial activism is often justified under the theory that justice should not be due to procedural rigidity or legislative inaction.

Points of Theoretical Conflict

Separation of power theory	Judicial activism theory
Each organs should function in its own domain	Judiciary may intervene in legislative or executive actions.
Court should only interpret laws.	Courts can create guidelines when laws are absent or unclear.
Prioritizes institutional conflict.	Prioritizes justice and rights.
Supports formal boundaries.	Support flexible , evolution constitutional interpretation .

 

This conflict arises from different goals:-

●       Separation of powers focuses on institutional order.

●       Judicial activism focuses on substantive justice.

 

Constitutional Position (INDIA)

In India Article -50 of the constitution suggests separation of judiciary from the executive , and the courts have recognised the basic structure doctrine (keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala^[8]) which includes separation of power as a core structure.

 

Yet, the Indian Supreme Court has often acted in an activist role, especially via Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and justified it as necessary for constitutional governance , especially when legislative or executive actions violate fundamental rights.

 

Modern Theories Supporting Balanced Activism

Checks and balances Theory -: while organs are separate, they should each check other to prevent organs.

Collaborative Governance Theory -: All three organs must cooperate to achieve justice and governance.

Constitutional Mortality-: Courts may take steps to enforce constitutional values, even in the absence of a specific law.

Thus, Modern Constitutional theory allows limited balanced Judicial Activism - but not unchecked Judicial overreach.

Critique in theory

Critique of judicial activism argues that:-

●       It weakens democratic legitimacy, as judges are not elected.

●       It creates a judicial oligarchy, where a few judges can make decisions for the entire nation.

●       It can lead to judicial overreach, disturbing constitutional harmony.

Supports of Judicial Activism argues that:-

●       In transitional democracies or developing countries , activism helps bridge institutional failure.

●       It protects the voiceless marginalized who are often ignored by the political class.

 

Conclusion

Judicial activism plays a very important role in democracy. It helps protect the rights of citizens , especially when the legislature or executive fails to do their job properly. It ensures that the rule of law is followed and gives voice to the poor and helpless through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), however , if judicial activism goes too far, it can disturb the balance of power between the different branches of government . When courts start  making laws or interfering too much with government policies , it weakens the democratic process.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1)   Judicial activism and overreach in india

(2)   The legislative aspect of Judiciary : Judicial activism and judicial restraint

(3)   Judicial and public Interest litigation in India.

(4)   https://www.drishtijudiciary.com differences between judicial activism and judicial Restraint

---

^[1] M.P jain indina constitutional law , 8th ed.(Lexisnexis Butterworths 2018), p.1192 -: defines aprroach where the courts start interpret laws to meet contemporary needs.

^[2] Vishakha vs . State of Rajasthan and other , (1997) 6 SCC 241.

 

^[3] M.C mehta vs. Union of India , (1987) 1 SCC 395

^[4] Hussainara khatoon vs .State of Bihar (1979) 3 SCC 532

^[5] Olga tellis and others vs. Bombay Municiple Corporation & others (1985) 3 SCC  545

^[6] People Union for civil liberties (PUCL) vs. Union of  India & other writ petition civil no.196/2001, Supreme court of India.

^[7] R.C chaudhary “judical Activism and Indian Democracy “indian journal of Public administration , Vol. 52, No. 3 (2006), pp. 425-433-: Analyzing tje positive and negative effect of judicial actvism on the functioning  of Indian democracy.

^[8] Keshvananda Bharti vs State of Kerala , (1973) SC 1461.

Hastags:-

#JudicialActivism

#DemocracyAndLaw

#IndianJudiciary

#JudicialOverreach

#ChecksAndBalances

#ConstitutionalDemocracy

#JudicialReview

#ActivistJudiciary

#SeparationOfPowers

#LawAndDemocracy