Judicial activism

Introduction:- The term “Judicial Activism” denotes the judiciary’s proactive involvement in defending citizens’ rights. In other words we can say it is a philosophy of judicial decision making where by judges allow their personal views regarding a public policy instead of constitutionalism. Through Judicial activism the judges interpret and apply laws in a way that goes beyond what is clearly written in the Constitution or other legal documents.The term judicial activism was coined by Arthur Schlesinger in 1947 and developed in the USA. In India it was laid down by Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N Bhagwati, Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy, and Justice D.A Desai. In India this power is given to Supreme Court and the High Courts. The inferior courts lack access to this function.

“न्यायिक सक्रियता” शब्द नागरिकों के अधिकारों की रक्षा में न्यायपालिका की सक्रिय भागीदारी को दर्शाता है। इसे न्यायिक निर्णय लेने के एक दर्शन के रूप में परिभाषित किया जा सकता है जहां न्यायाधीश संवैधानिकता के बजाय सार्वजनिक नीति के संबंध में अपने व्यक्तिगत विचारों को अनुमति देते हैं। न्यायिक सक्रियतावाद के माध्यम से न्यायाधीश कानूनों की व्याख्या और कार्यान्वयन इस तरह से करते हैं जो संविधान या अन्य कानूनी दस्तावेजों में स्पष्ट रूप से लिखी गई बातों से परे हो। न्यायिक सक्रियता शब्द 1947 में आर्थर स्लेसिंगर द्वारा गढ़ा गया था और संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका में विकसित किया गया था। भारत में इसे न्यायमूर्ति वी.आर.कृष्णा अय्यर, न्यायमूर्ति पी.एन.भगवती, न्यायमूर्ति ओ.चिन्नप्पा रेड्डी और अन्य द्वारा निर्धारित किया गया था। भारत में यह शक्ति सर्वोच्च न्यायालय और उच्च न्यायालयों को दी गई है। निचली अदालतों के पास इस कार्य की पहुंच नहीं है।

Significance Of Judicial activism

Broad Interpretation of the Constitution – Through judicial activism the judges focus on the principles and values of the constitution rather than what the framers originally meant.

संविधान की व्यापक व्याख्या – न्यायिक सक्रियता के माध्यम से न्यायाधीश संविधान के सिद्धांतों और मूल्यों पर ध्यान केंद्रित करते हैं न कि संविधान निर्माताओं के लिखित अर्थ पर।

Creative Statutory Interpretation- Through judicial activism the Judges may interpret laws creatively to address current social issues. They may stretch the law’s wording. They might also use new techniques like purposive interpretation to achieve desired outcomes.

रचनात्मक वैधानिक व्याख्या- न्यायिक सक्रियता के माध्यम से न्यायाधीश वर्तमान सामाजिक मुद्दों को संबोधित करने के लिए कानूनों की रचनात्मक व्याख्या कर सकते हैं। वे कानून की शब्दावली को बढ़ा सकते हैं। वे वांछित परिणाम प्राप्त करने के लिए नई तकनीकों का भी उपयोग कर सकते हैं जैसे उद्देश्यपूर्ण व्याख्या।

Expansion of Constitutional Rights-Through judicial activism the Judges may expand constitutional rights beyond what they were initially known to be. They might identify new rights or make existing ones broader. By this, they safeguard marginalized groups or tackle fresh social issues.

संवैधानिक अधिकारों का विस्तार- न्यायिक सक्रियता के माध्यम से न्यायाधीश संवैधानिक अधिकारों का विस्तार कर सकता है जो उन्हें शुरू में प्राप्त थे। वे नए अधिकारों की पहचान कर सकते हैं या मौजूदा अधिकारों को व्यापक बना सकते हैं। इसके द्वारा, वे हाशिये पर पड़े समूहों की रक्षा करते हैं तथा नए सामाजिक मुद्दों से निपटते हैं।

Policy-Based Reasoning – Through judicial activism the Judges making decisions to support specific policy goals or judges making decisions to fix perceived social injustices. They think about the wider impact and results of their decisions. It is not just about the specific case they are working on.

नीति-आधारित तर्क – न्यायिक सक्रियता के माध्यम से न्यायाधीश विशिष्ट नीतिगत लक्ष्यों का समर्थन करने के लिए निर्णय लेते हैं तथा न्यायाधीश कथित सामाजिक अन्याय को ठीक करने के लिए निर्णय लेते हैं। वे अपने निर्णयों के व्यापक प्रभाव और परिणामों के बारे में सोचते हैं। यह केवल उस विशिष्ट मामले के बारे में नहीं है जिस पर वे काम कर रहे हैं।

Protecting Individual Rights – Judicial Activism has been instrumental in protecting fundamental rights, by striking down laws and government actions that are deemed unconstitutional and expanding the scope of individual rights beyond what was previously recognized by law. Ex: Right to privacy also became Fundamental right under Article 21.

Promoting Social Justice –The Supreme Court of India has been proactive in promoting social justice, particularly through the use of PIL. The apex court is significant to uphold rule of law & rule of Natural Justice.

Ensuring Government Accountability – By striking down laws and government actions that are deemed unconstitutional or that infringe on individual rights, the judiciary serves as a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches of government and ensures Government Accountability.

Strengthening Democracy – By protecting individual rights and promoting social justice, the judiciary helps to ensure that the government represents the interests of all citizens, not just those in positions of power. Ex: Whistle Blowers Act against corrupt officials and politicians was given under Article 142, until Parliament made a law on the subject

Upholds Constitutional morality concept- Through judicial activism judiciary upholds the priciple of constitutional morality. In Naz Foundation Case this concept in an innovative manner used the concept is used to strike down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and decriminalize homosexuality. It is an last hope for upholding citizens’ rights and implementing constitutional principles when the executive and legislature fails to do so.

Executive & legislative lacks Political gumption – When the legislature and legislature fail to safeguard people’ rights and execute constitutional principles, it is an effective instrument. In the Sabarimala & Haji Ali judgment, court held that women should be allowed entry in the Sabarimala temple against popularly religious beliefs.

Demerits Of Judicial activism

Decision by Unelected body – Judiciary is an unelected body so it does not enjoy “General Will” of the people. Judicial restraint is more apt for such an institution rather than legislation which is against democratic process. Judicial activism allows judges to make decisions instead of elected representatives. Ex: Ban on liquor sale on highways led to backlash as well as spurious means to overcome the dictum. Judicial activism might interfere with the democratic process. It allows judges to make decisions instead of elected representatives.

Personal views of Judges – Judges may go beyond their role and make decisions based on personal opinions instead of the law itself. Judges may stick closely to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution. Activism may result in decisions without proper checks and balances. When judges play an active role, there is a risk of inconsistency in their decisions. Different judges may interpret laws differently.

Judicial Overreach or Judicial adventurism- when Judicial activism crosses its limits becomes Judicial adventurism.It violates the basic principle of “separation of powers” of democracy.

Lack of Specialty- The judiciary don’t have specialization in all the matters concerning the state. Like in matters of corporate, finance, GST, defense etc. If a dispute arise in such matteres then the High court or the Supreme Court won’t be able to perform activism pefectly.

Judicial activism may lead to delays in the legislative process. Courts intervention in policy matters potentially hinders effective governance.

• Against Constitution’s Mandate: Judicial Review is a basic structure of the Constitution; however enacting legislation is not. Courts can look into the validity of the law, but not necessarily make a law.
• Unaccountable: Politicians remain “accountable” to the people in at least some sense, because they depend upon them in order to continue in office after five years.
• Judicial adventurism: Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018): the court amended the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by annulling Section 18 which said that no anticipatory bail will be granted to persons accused under the Act.

Each organ of our democracy must function within its own sphere and must not take over what is assigned to the others. Judicial activism must also function within the limits of the judicial process because the courts are the only forum for those wronged by administrative excesses and executive arbitrariness. Hence legislation enacted by Judiciary must be in the rare cases as mentioned above.

Conclusion

We have looked into judicial activism assessing its importance and drawbacks. We can hence say that Judicial activism is a judicial ideology that holds that courts may and should go beyond the letter of the law in order to examine the larger social consequences of their judgements. Judicial activism is the use of judicial review to invalidate government actions. In general, the term is used to indicate negative applications of such authority, although there is no consensus on which cases are unfavourable.