1. Introduction to Judicial Activism

  • Origin: The term “judicial activism” originated in the United States, coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947.
  • Introduction in India: The doctrine was introduced in the mid-1970s by Justices like V.R. Krishna Iyer and P.N. Bhagwati.

2. Meaning of Judicial Activism

  • Definition: Judicial activism is the proactive role of the judiciary in protecting citizens’ rights and promoting justice, sometimes by asserting influence over legislative and executive domains.
  • Contrast with Judicial Restraint: Unlike judicial activism, judicial restraint emphasizes a conservative approach where judges strictly adhere to established legal precedent without introducing personal beliefs.

3. Aspects of Judicial Activism in India

  • Public Interest Litigation (PIL): This is a significant tool of judicial activism, allowing courts to issue directives to government authorities on public interest matters.
  • Interpretation of Fundamental Rights: Courts have expanded the scope of rights like equality (Article 14), freedom (Article 19), and life and liberty (Article 21) through judicial interpretation.

4. Judicial Review and Judicial Activism

  • Relationship: Judicial activism often incorporates judicial review but extends beyond it by influencing policy and social change.
  • Difference: Judicial review is about upholding or invalidating laws, while judicial activism involves policy-making to align laws with societal needs.

5. Justification of Judicial Activism

  • Reasons:
    • Legislative and Executive Failure: When these branches fail in their duties, the judiciary intervenes.
    • Protection of Rights: Citizens look to the judiciary to safeguard freedoms and rights.
    • Judicial Enthusiasm and Legislative Vacuum: Judges actively contribute to social reforms where laws are silent.
    • Constitutional Provisions: Certain provisions empower the judiciary to interpret laws expansively.

6. Activators of Judicial Activism

  • Social and Human Rights Activists: Groups like civil rights activists, consumer rights groups, environmental groups, and women’s rights groups have influenced judicial activism by seeking judicial intervention on various societal issues.

7. Apprehensions of Judicial Activism

  • Types of Fears (as identified by Upendra Baxi):
    • Ideological Fear: Concerns about overreach into legislative and executive functions.
    • Epistemic Fear: Judicial involvement in complex scientific or economic issues where expertise may be limited.
    • Management and Legitimacy Fears: Worries about caseload burdens and potential loss of public trust if activism is excessive.
    • Democratic and Biographic Fears: Potential long-term effects on democracy and judicial legacy.

8. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

  • Meaning of Judicial Restraint: Judicial restraint limits judges to interpret laws without making them, upholding the original intent of the law and respecting legislative and executive boundaries.
  • Assumptions of Judicial Restraint:
    • Courts should defer to more democratic branches due to their non-elective nature.
    • Adherence to separation of powers and federalism.
    • Avoiding intrusion into political matters, which are the domain of elected officials.

9. Supreme Court Observations on Judicial Restraint

  • The Indian Supreme Court has called for judicial restraint, emphasizing that judges should not perform executive or legislative roles, thus respecting the separation of powers.
  • Key Points:
    • Judges must exercise humility and not overreach.
    • Courts should avoid administrative decisions as they lack expertise in these fields.
    • Courts should focus on fostering equality among the branches of government and avoid interfering excessively in the roles of other branches.