Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Judicial activism, broadly defined, refers to the judiciary’s willingness to interpret the constitution and laws in a way that promotes social and political change. This proactive approach distinguishes itself from judicial restraint, where courts defer to the legislative and executive branches. The genesis of this trend in India can be traced to the landmark *Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala* (1973) case, which established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine. This doctrine posited that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its fundamental features, thereby establishing the judiciary as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and setting the stage for a more assertive role in safeguarding democratic principles.
Evolution of Judicial Activism in India
Post-Kesavananda Bharati, the Indian judiciary progressively expanded its role. Several factors contributed to this: a weak opposition, unstable governments, and a perceived lack of accountability in the executive. This led to the emergence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the 1980s, championed by Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. PIL allowed marginalized sections of society to approach the courts, even without standing, to enforce their fundamental rights.
Positive Impacts on Democratic Ideals
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary has consistently intervened to protect fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 21. For example, in *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* (1978), the Supreme Court broadened the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) to include the right to travel abroad.
- Promoting Good Governance: Judicial activism has played a crucial role in improving governance. The court’s intervention in environmental matters, such as the *M.C. Mehta v. Union of India* cases (regarding pollution in the Ganga and Taj Mahal), led to stricter environmental regulations and enforcement.
- Ensuring Accountability: The judiciary has held the executive accountable for its actions. In *Vineet Narain v. Union of India* (1998), the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to function independently and free from political interference.
- Electoral Reforms: The Court has mandated reforms to ensure free and fair elections, including the disclosure of criminal records by candidates (*Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India*, 2002).
- Addressing Systemic Issues: The judiciary has addressed systemic issues like police reforms (*Prakash Singh v. Union of India*, 2006) and prison conditions (*Mohendra Pal v. State of Haryana*, 1992).
Criticisms of Judicial Activism
Despite its positive contributions, judicial activism has faced criticism:
- Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that the judiciary sometimes oversteps its boundaries and encroaches upon the legislative and executive domains, effectively making policy decisions.
- Lack of Democratic Legitimacy: Judges are unelected, raising concerns about the democratic legitimacy of their decisions, particularly when they involve policy matters.
- Delay in Justice Delivery: Increased judicial activism, coupled with a large backlog of cases, can contribute to delays in justice delivery.
- PIL Abuse: PIL, while beneficial, has been misused at times for personal gain or political motives.
The debate surrounding judicial activism highlights the delicate balance between safeguarding constitutional principles and respecting the separation of powers. The judiciary’s role is not to replace the legislature or executive but to ensure they act within the constitutional framework.
Conclusion
Judicial activism in India, originating with the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, has undeniably been instrumental in strengthening democratic ideals by protecting fundamental rights, promoting good governance, and ensuring accountability. While criticisms regarding judicial overreach and democratic legitimacy are valid, the judiciary’s proactive role has been crucial in a context often marked by executive dominance and legislative shortcomings. Moving forward, a calibrated approach – balancing judicial intervention with respect for the separation of powers – is essential to ensure a thriving and robust democracy.
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.