In this article you will learn about Judicial Restraint in Political Science.
Judicial Restraint
Judicial restraint refers to the philosophy that judges should generally defer to the decisions made by elected officials and should only intervene when absolutely necessary. This principle is based on the belief that the judiciary's primary role is to interpret the law, not to create it.
Judicial Restraint is poles apart and opposed to the philosophy of Judicial Activism. This philosophy or principle upholds the views 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. They should not get involved in law-making during the course of interpretation of law. These functions should be left to the legislature and the executive, and the judges should remain away from it.
In other words Judicial Restraint is a principle of Judicial interpretation and giving decisions which demands that judges must observe restraint while using their power of interpretation of law. They should hesitate to strike down a law unless it is clearly unconstitutional and violative of any written and recorded constitutional law of the state.
Under this doctrine, judges should avoid striking down laws or policies simply because they personally disagree with them. Instead, they should only do so if the law is clearly unconstitutional or violates established legal principles. This approach is often contrasted with judicial activism, where judges take a more proactive role in shaping public policy and striking down laws they deem unjust.
Judicial restraint is often associated with conservative legal philosophy and is seen as a way of preserving the separation of powers and limiting the role of the judiciary in government. Proponents of judicial restraint argue that judges should be mindful of the potential consequences of their decisions and should respect the authority of other branches of government.
Judges must remain away from the law-making and policy making which are the functions of the Legislative and Executive. They do not have a popular mandate to act as policy-makers. The courts should hesitate to use judicial review for promoting new ideas or policy preferences. The Judgements of the Judges should interpret the law and not intervene in policy-making.
Hence, Judges should act with restraint and always try to decide cases on the basis of the original intention of those who wrote and enacted the constitutional law of the state i.e. the constitution. The judges must follow the Constitution and should not try to give it their meanings.
In summary, judicial restraint is a legal philosophy that emphasises the importance of limiting the role of the judiciary in government and deferring to the decisions of elected officials. While it is often associated with conservative legal philosophy, it has been the subject of significant debate and criticism.
This article on Judicial Restraint in Political Science is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.