“India has thrown up a form of judicial democracy that has no parallel anywhere else, and has nurtured a kind of civil society that is uniquely its own.” (Bhikhu Parekh)

Judicial Democracy in India

The term ‘judicial democracy,’ as applied to India, refers to the judiciary’s expanded role beyond traditional dispute resolution. This expansion is characterized by:

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Introduced in the 1980s, PIL allows individuals and organizations to petition the courts on behalf of marginalized groups, even without their direct consent. Landmark cases like Vishnu Bhagat v. State of Maharashtra (1984), concerning prisoners’ rights, exemplify this.
• Judicial Activism: The Indian judiciary has actively intervened in areas traditionally considered within the executive domain, such as environmental protection (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – Taj Mahal case, 1987), labour rights, and electoral reforms.
• Expanding Scope of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary has broadened the interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), to include the right to a clean environment, education, and livelihood.
• Court Monitoring of Executive Functions: Courts frequently monitor the implementation of government policies and projects, ensuring compliance with legal provisions and constitutional principles.

However, this ‘judicial democracy’ isn’t without criticism. Concerns include judicial overreach, delays in the judicial process, and the potential for judges to substitute their policy preferences for those of the elected representatives.

A Unique Indian Civil Society

Indian civil society is remarkably diverse, encompassing:

• Traditional Institutions: Panchayats and other local self-governance bodies play a significant role in community development and social mobilization.
• Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): India boasts a vast network of NGOs working on a wide range of issues, from poverty alleviation and healthcare to environmental conservation and human rights. Organizations like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) pioneered the Right to Information movement.
• Social Movements: India has a history of powerful social movements, such as the Chipko Movement (environmental protection), the Narmada Bachao Andolan (displacement due to dams), and the Anna Hazare movement (anti-corruption).
• Media and Advocacy Groups: A vibrant media landscape and numerous advocacy groups contribute to public awareness and accountability.
• Self-Help Groups (SHGs): Particularly prominent in rural areas, SHGs empower women and promote economic self-reliance.

This civil society is unique due to its scale, diversity, and deep roots in local communities. It often acts as a bridge between the state and citizens, amplifying marginalized voices and advocating for policy changes. However, challenges include funding constraints, lack of transparency, and the potential for co-option by political interests.

Interplay between Judiciary and Civil Society

The Indian judiciary and civil society often work in tandem. PILs are frequently filed by civil society organizations, and court orders often rely on information and evidence provided by them. This symbiotic relationship strengthens both institutions and promotes accountability. For example, the Supreme Court’s intervention in the 2G spectrum allocation case (2012) was significantly influenced by the advocacy efforts of civil society groups.

Feature	Judicial Democracy	Indian Civil Society
Key Characteristic	Expanded judicial role in policy-making & rights enforcement	Diverse range of organizations advocating for social change
Mechanism	PIL, Judicial Activism, Broad Interpretation of FRs	NGOs, Social Movements, SHGs, Media
Strengths	Protection of rights, accountability of state	Amplifying marginalized voices, promoting participation
Weaknesses	Judicial overreach, delays	Funding issues, lack of transparency