In this article you will learn about Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint in Political Science.
Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint
The Supreme Court of India is the interpreter, guardian and protector of the Constitution of India. Its interpretations of the constitution are final and these are binding both on all courts of India, as well as on all public institutions, public service personnel and the legislative and executive branches of the government. Likewise the Supreme Court of the USA is also the guardian and interpreter of the constitution. Both, the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court of the USA exercise the power of Judicial Review for judging the constitutional validity of the acts of the Legislature and Executive. In case after conducting Judicial Review, any law or decision of the government is held to be unconstitutional, it is declared void and null and it ceases to operate from the date on which the Supreme Court declares it, as a whole or its some parts, as unconstitutional.
There are two alternative principles or concepts or philosophies or approaches on the basis of which the judgements in judicial review cases are made. These are Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint that are two alternatives or two different even opposed facets or principles which are advocated by different jurists.
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two approaches to interpreting and applying the law by courts. Judicial Activism is a theory of Judgement that takes into account the spirit of law and the needs, features and demands of the changing times. Judicial Restraint is the philosophy or principle that upholds the view that the role of judges in interpretation of law should be scrupulously limited and their job is to say and hold the law as it is.
Judicial activism is a philosophy in which judges interpret the law in a way that is consistent with their own personal beliefs and values, and they may also use their power to strike down laws or government actions they consider unconstitutional or unjust. This approach is often associated with judges who believe that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted in light of contemporary social and political values.
In contrast, judicial restraint is a philosophy that emphasises the importance of limiting the role of judges in the interpretation of the law. Judges who adhere to this approach believe that they should defer to the decisions of elected officials and should only strike down laws or government actions that are clearly unconstitutional or violate established legal precedent.
In summary, the main difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint is that the former emphasises a more active role for judges in interpreting and applying the law, while the latter emphasises a more limited role for judges and a greater deference to the decisions of elected officials.
This article on Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint in Political Science is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.