In this article you will learn about Judicial Activism in India in Political Science.
Judicial Activism in India
Judicial activism in India refers to the approach taken by the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the law beyond the traditional confines of legal doctrine. It is a concept that originated in the United States but has been applied in India to describe a judiciary that is willing to take an active role in shaping public policy and addressing social issues.
In India, the concept of judicial activism is closely tied to the idea of judicial review, which refers to the power of the courts to review and invalidate laws or executive actions that are deemed to be unconstitutional or in violation of the fundamental rights of citizens.
The Indian Judiciary has been presently becoming more and more active. The Supreme Court has been coming out with judicial decisions and directives aimed at the protection of the public interest and human rights by giving directions to the bureaucracy and police. It has been using its power to deliver judgements, decisions and directives for fighting executive apathy towards public needs and interests. It has been giving directions to the public officials for checking environment pollution, illegal constructions and encroachments on public property as well as for making the government and bureaucracy more transparent and responsive to public needs and demands for efficiency and action. It has been trying to activate the government, administration and public against corruption and other social evils. The Public Interest Litigation System has been picking up. The Lok Adalats system is also taking a proper shape. The High Courts have been intervening to prevent misuse of government power in making recruitments or appointments or promotions. The courts have been trying to check malpractices on the part of public officials.
In May 1995, the Supreme Court called upon the Government of India to work for securing a Uniform Civil Code for all the people as stipulated in the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution. This was indeed an act of judicial activism. During 1996 to 2008, the Supreme Court practised ‘activism’ in getting expedited action in CBI cases against persons-public servants- alleged to have been involved in several scams and acts of indiscretion.
In short, exceeding the constitutional brief of interpreting and applying the law as it is and taking over executive and legislative functions in violation of the constitution scheme of the separation of powers, constitutes Judicial Activism.
In other words, judicial activism means a proactive approach of the Judiciary towards prevailing social economic politico administrative conditions in the country.
Judicial Activism aims at securing a due implementation of laws, policies, rules and programs by the executive. It constitutes a bold attempt on the part of the Judiciary to act as an active guardian of law by undertaking action for checking executive and legislative apathy towards public demand, interest and legitimate services.
In 2007, a small bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the courts should observe restraint while pursuing Judicial Activism. However the Chief Justice of India held that it was not a decision of the whole of the Supreme Court.
While pursuing Judicial Activism, the Judiciary must act more vigorously to eliminate judicial delays. It must make judicial procedures simple and less expensive. However, the need is to make the functioning of all courts efficient and active. This must be included in the agenda of Judicial Activism being pursued by the Judiciary.
This article on Judicial Activism in India in Political Science is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.