Since the inception of the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary in India has been at the forefront of safeguarding and nurturing the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. Judicial activism has served as a potent tool in this endeavor, empowering the judiciary to intervene in matters where constitutional values are at stake. Through landmark decisions and interpretations, the judiciary has expanded the horizons of democracy, ensuring its vitality and resilience in the Indian context. By upholding the supremacy of the Constitution, the judiciary has acted as a bulwark against executive and legislative excesses, thereby maintaining the delicate balance of power essential for a vibrant democracy. Furthermore, judicial activism has facilitated access to justice, particularly for marginalized and underprivileged sections of society, thus fostering inclusivity and equality, which are foundational to democratic ideals. However, criticisms of judicial overreach and judicial activism is seen as a transgression into the domain of the legislature and executive warrant careful consideration. Nonetheless, on balance, the proactive role played by the judiciary through judicial activism has been instrumental in advancing the cause of democracy in India.
Tag: Structure, organization, and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
Decoding the Question:
- In the Introduction, try to give background about the doctrine of judicial activism in India.
- In Body,
- Highlight the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy.
- Discuss various issues with judicial activism.
- In Conclusion, try to conclude with the necessity of Judicial Activism and the way forward.
Answer:
Historically, the Indian Judiciary has played a proactive role, stepping in when the other two branches of the government seem to have faltered. The linkage between Judicial activism and democracy is a complex one.Judicial activism is a concept that originated in the US in 1947, and in India, it was introduced in the mid-1970s. The judiciary has shed its pro-status-quo approach and taken upon itself the duty to enforce the basic rights of the poor and vulnerable sections of society by progressive interpretation and positive action. Through various cases, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy and preventing arbitrary state action.
Methods of Judicial Activism:
- Judicial review
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
- Access to international statute for ensuring constitutional rights
- Constitutional interpretation
- Supervisory power of the higher courts upon the lower courts
Positive Role Played by Judicial Activism in Achieving the Ideals of Democracy:
- Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): In this case, SC defined the basic structure of the Constitution. It held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, but the basic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment. Judiciary can strike down an amendment passed by the Parliament which is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.
- In the case of issuing advisories w.r.t section 66A of the IT Act and issuing guidelines curbing the sale of acid in response to public outrage, the judiciary has engaged in making rules and taking decisions which should’ve been with the Legislature/Executive.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain Case (1975): The court invalidated the 39th Amendment act, which kept the elections of the President, the Vice President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond the scrutiny of the judiciary. SC added free and fair elections as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution, Democracy, the rule of law, and equality.
- National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case: SC invalidated the 99th Amendment act of the Constitution, which dealt with the appointment of judges and said the independence of judiciary & separation of power are Basic features of the Constitution.
- Arun Gopal v. Union of India (2017): The court fixed timings for bursting Diwali fireworks and prohibited the use of non-green fireworks to preserve the environment.
- Vishakha v/s State of Rajasthan case: The court laid down guidelines for the protection of women from sexual harassment at the workplace.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court annulled the statutory Rule of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It directed that no BS-4 vehicle should be sold after March 30, 2020, and only BS-6 vehicles can be sold after it.
- Maneka Gandhi v /s Union of India case: The SC introduced the concept of “Due Process of Law” in place of “Procedure established by Law”. The court held that the ‘Right to life’ embodied in Article 21 is not merely conned to animal existence or survival, but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.
The problem of Judicial Overreach:
- Judicial activism is the term used to indicate the encroachment by the judiciary on the turf of the other two branches. This overreach is considered a threat to democracy because it violates the basic tenet of democracy that it is a government ‘by the people’ and ‘of the people’.
- The judges, who don’t have the people’s mandate assume the role of elected officials and engage in policy-making. This in itself cannot be encouraged.
- The repeated intervention of courts can diminish the faith of the people in the integrity, quality, and efficiency of the government. For example, the Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of 122 telecom licenses and spectrum allocated to eight companies.
- The Supreme Court banned the sale of liquor at hotels, retail outlets, and bars that are within a 500m radius of any national or state highway. This was an administrative matter where the decision should rest with the executive.
- It can harm the public at large as the judgment may be influenced by the personal opinion of the judge.
- In Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India, the Supreme Court made it mandatory for cinema halls to play the National Anthem before the starting of the movie. It goes beyond the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act, 1971, which provides that no film, drama, or show of any sort can have the National Anthem as part of the show.
- It violates the provision of separation of power in the Constitution and the limit of power set to be exercised by the Constitution.
- It also limits the functioning of the government by surpassing its power and creates a conflict between the legislative and the judicial system.
The concept of judicial activism has both positive and negative sides; if the judiciary intervenes too much in the working of other organs of the government and tries to overreach the Constitutional powers, then this concept of judicial activism loses its importance and essence. Role played by judicial activism had a manifold impact on the political system; it is deemed favorable in addition to the legislative’s failures. But there should be a narrow demarcation between activism and overreach; for a fine balance, the judiciary should follow self-imposed discipline and self-restraint.
In case you still have your doubts, contact us on 9811333901.
For UPSC Prelims Resources, Click here
For Daily Updates and Study Material:
Join our Telegram Channel – Edukemy for IAS
- 1. Learn through Videos – here
- 2. Be Exam Ready by Practicing Daily MCQs – here
- 3. Daily Newsletter – Get all your Current Affairs Covered – here
- 4. Mains Answer Writing Practice – here
