Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Judicial activism, broadly defined as the judiciary’s willingness to interpret the Constitution and laws in a dynamic manner to address societal needs and protect fundamental rights, has been a prominent feature of the Indian legal landscape since the 1980s. While the Indian Constitution establishes a clear separation of powers, the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution often necessitates intervention in areas traditionally considered within the legislative domain. This has led to debates about whether such activism undermines parliamentary democracy by overstepping its boundaries, or strengthens it by ensuring accountability and protecting citizens’ rights. Recent instances like the striking down of electoral bonds scheme (February 2024) highlight the ongoing tension and relevance of this debate.
Evolution of Judicial Activism in India
Initially, the Indian judiciary adopted a conservative approach, adhering to the doctrine of ‘strict constructionism’ – interpreting the Constitution literally. However, post-independence, and particularly after the 1980s, a shift towards judicial activism began. This was fueled by several factors:
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Introduced in the 1980s, PIL enabled access to justice for marginalized sections of society, prompting the judiciary to address issues of public importance.
- Weakening of Executive Accountability: Perceived failures of the executive and legislature in addressing societal problems led to citizens seeking redressal from the courts.
- Judicial Independence: The Supreme Court’s assertion of its independence and its willingness to challenge executive actions contributed to the rise of judicial activism.
Arguments for Judicial Activism Undermining Parliamentary Democracy
Critics argue that judicial activism can undermine parliamentary democracy in several ways:
- Encroachment on Legislative Functions: The judiciary, through its power of judicial review (Article 32 & 226), can strike down laws passed by Parliament, effectively legislating from the bench. The striking down of the NJAC Act (National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014) is often cited as an example.
- Policy Formulation: Judicial interventions sometimes extend to formulating policies, which is the prerogative of the executive and legislature. For example, the Supreme Court’s directions regarding environmental protection, pollution control, and road safety often involve detailed policy prescriptions.
- Delay in Governance: Frequent judicial interventions can lead to delays in the implementation of government policies and projects, hindering the development process.
- Lack of Democratic Legitimacy: Judges are not elected representatives and therefore lack the democratic legitimacy of the legislature. Their decisions, while legally binding, may not reflect the will of the people.
Arguments for Judicial Activism Strengthening Parliamentary Democracy
Conversely, proponents argue that judicial activism strengthens parliamentary democracy by:
- Upholding Constitutional Values: The judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that laws and executive actions are in conformity with fundamental rights and constitutional principles.
- Protecting Fundamental Rights: Judicial activism has been instrumental in protecting fundamental rights, particularly those of marginalized and vulnerable groups. The Maneka Gandhi case (1978) expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
- Holding the Executive Accountable: The judiciary’s power of judicial review ensures that the executive is accountable for its actions and does not abuse its power. The 2G Spectrum case (2012) is a prime example of the judiciary holding the executive accountable.
- Filling Legislative Vacuums: In situations where the legislature fails to address important issues, the judiciary can step in to fill the vacuum and provide necessary legal remedies. The Vishaka Guidelines (1997) on sexual harassment at the workplace were formulated by the Supreme Court in the absence of specific legislation.
- Promoting Good Governance: Judicial interventions can promote transparency, accountability, and efficiency in governance.
Balancing the Powers: The Basic Structure Doctrine
The Supreme Court’s articulation of the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is crucial in understanding the limits of parliamentary sovereignty and the role of judicial review. This doctrine holds that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or essential features. This doctrine acts as a check on legislative power and safeguards the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
| Aspect | Arguments for Undermining Democracy | Arguments for Strengthening Democracy |
|---|---|---|
| Legislative Function | Encroachment through judicial review & policy formulation | Ensuring laws align with constitutional values |
| Executive Accountability | Delays governance & lacks democratic legitimacy | Holds executive accountable & prevents abuse of power |
| Addressing Gaps | Legislating from the bench | Fills legislative vacuums & provides remedies |
Conclusion
In conclusion, the relationship between judicial activism and parliamentary democracy in India is complex and multifaceted. While judicial activism can sometimes appear to encroach upon the legislative domain, it has also played a vital role in upholding constitutional values, protecting fundamental rights, and promoting good governance. The key lies in maintaining a delicate balance between judicial independence and parliamentary sovereignty, guided by the principles of constitutionalism and the Basic Structure Doctrine. A proactive yet restrained judiciary, coupled with a responsive legislature, is essential for a vibrant and functioning 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.