Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Judicial activism, broadly defined, refers to the practice of courts going beyond the traditional interpretation of laws to address social injustices and promote public interest. In India, this has manifested as the judiciary taking a proactive role in areas like fundamental rights enforcement, environmental protection, and governance reforms. While the Indian Constitution establishes a separation of powers, the judiciary has, over time, expanded its role through techniques like Public Interest Litigation (PIL), evolving from a strict constructionist approach to a more interventionist one, particularly post-Maneka Gandhi (1978). This evolution has significantly impacted social change, but also sparked debates about judicial overreach.
Evolution of Judicial Activism in India
Initially, the Indian judiciary adhered to a conservative, literal interpretation of laws. However, several factors contributed to the rise of judicial activism:
- Post-Emergency Period (1975-77): The excesses during the Emergency led to a greater emphasis on fundamental rights and a desire to prevent their future violation.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Introduced in the 1980s, PIL allowed individuals and organizations to approach the courts on behalf of marginalized sections of society, bypassing traditional locus standi requirements.
- Judicial Appointments & Leadership: The appointment of proactive Chief Justices who encouraged judicial intervention played a crucial role.
Key Cases Demonstrating Social Change
Environmental Protection
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): This case, concerning pollution in the Ganga River, led to the closure of polluting industries and the implementation of stricter environmental regulations. It established the ‘polluter pays’ principle in India.
Rights of Women
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): In the absence of specific legislation, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women in the workplace, which were later codified into the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Rights of Prisoners
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978): This case highlighted the inhumane conditions in prisons and led to improvements in prison administration and the recognition of prisoners’ rights.
Governance & Transparency
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The court recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, protecting the rights of pavement dwellers.
Right to Education
Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993): The Supreme Court declared education a fundamental right under Article 21, paving the way for the Right to Education Act, 2009.
Debates and Criticisms
While judicial activism has undoubtedly contributed to social change, it has also faced criticism:
- Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the judiciary sometimes encroaches upon the legislative and executive domains, violating the principle of separation of powers.
- Lack of Democratic Legitimacy: Judges are not elected, raising concerns about the democratic legitimacy of their decisions on policy matters.
- PIL Abuse: PIL has been misused in some cases for personal gain or political motives.
- Implementation Challenges: Court orders are often difficult to implement due to lack of resources or political will.
However, proponents argue that judicial activism is necessary to protect fundamental rights, ensure social justice, and hold the government accountable, especially in situations where the legislature or executive fails to act.
Conclusion
Judicial activism in India has been a double-edged sword. While it has undeniably played a crucial role in advancing social justice and protecting fundamental rights, concerns about judicial overreach and democratic legitimacy remain valid. A balanced approach, where the judiciary exercises its power judiciously and respects the boundaries of separation of powers, is essential. The future of judicial activism lies in fostering a collaborative relationship between the judiciary, legislature, and executive to achieve inclusive and sustainable social change.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.