Introduction
Judicial activism empowers the judiciary to protect constitutional rights and ensure executive accountability where governance fails. However, when proactive interpretation transgresses constitutional boundaries into judicial overreach, it undermines institutional balance and effective administration.
Major Demerits of Judicial Activism
- Breach of Separation of Powers: Excessive judicial intervention directly violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers under Article 50, encroaching upon the legislative and executive spheres guaranteed under Articles 122 and 212. For instance, the Supreme Court had to stay the Allahabad High Court’s 2021 order mandating lockdowns in five Uttar Pradesh cities, underscoring that public health micro-management is exclusively an executive domain.
- Lack of Administrative Expertise and Accountability: Judges lack specialised administrative competence, fiscal foresight, and democratic accountability for complex policymaking—often described as the 'tyranny of the unelected'. In Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008), the Supreme Court cautioned benches against assuming executive roles, as exemplified by blanket interventions like the national highway liquor ban, which created unintended economic disruptions and job losses.
- Aggravation of Judicial Pendency: Entertaining excessive Public Interest Litigations (PILs) on governance and policy issues diverts limited court hours away from primary dispute resolution and constitutional adjudication. This deepens the judicial backlog, which currently exceeds 5 crore pending cases across Indian courts.
Conclusion
While judicial review remains fundamental to preserving fundamental rights, the judiciary must observe self-restraint and adhere to constitutional limits. Sustaining institutional equilibrium among the legislature, executive, and judiciary is vital for democratic stability.