Judicial activism refers to the concept of judges using their power to influence policies or make decisions that are based on their beliefs and interpretations rather than strictly adhering to legal precedents or the intention of the legislature. Judicial activism has become a major topic of debate and discussion in the Indian justice system, particularly over the past few years.
The Indian judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding and protecting the Constitution. But the concept of “judicial activism” raises serious questions about the limits to judicial power, and the role of judges within a democratic society.
The balance between the powers of the executive, legislature and judiciary is one of the main issues in relation to judicial activism. Critics of judicial activist argue that judges shouldn’t be making decisions which are better left to the elected representatives of people. They believe judges should only interpret the law in its written form and leave policy-making to the government.
On the contrary, advocates of judicial activism claim that the judiciary must step in to protect citizens’ rights or to enforce the constitution when the other branches fail to do so. They believe judges should use the power they have to deal with systemic problems, promote social justice and hold government accountable.
The Indian judiciary was involved in several high profile cases in recent years where judicial activism came into play. In the case of Vishakha Vs. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court of India issued guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at work in the absence of legislation. This decision is seen as an important step in the fight to protect women’s and gender rights.
The Supreme Court of India has also shown judicial activism by intervening in environmental issues, like the ban of the sale of fireworks in Delhi in order to combat air pollution. The court has issued directives on various issues, including cleaning up the Ganga River and preventing illegal mining.
Judicial activism can bring about positive changes, but there are also concerns over the erosion and potential of judicial power. Some critics say that judges shouldn’t make decisions that affect society in a major way without the proper oversight of legislators.
The debate on judicial activism is important and goes to the core of the functioning of any democratic society. The judiciary plays a vital role in protecting citizens’ rights and upholding the rule-of-law, but there are legitimate concerns over the limits of the judicial branch and the balance between the two branches of government. Aspirants who are preparing for the UPSC examination should be familiar with these issues as they will be asked about judicial activism within the Indian context.
