Judicial Process
Judicial Process
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism denotes a more active role taken
by Judiciary to dispense social justice. When we
speak of Judicial Activism, we point fingers to the
invented mechanisms which have no constitutional
backing (Eg: Suo moto (on its own) cases, Public
Interest Litigations (PIL), new doctrines etc)
Judicial Overreach
The line between Judicial activism and Judicial
Overreach is very narrow. In simple terms, when
Judicial activism crosses its limits and becomes
Judicial adventurism it is known as Judicial
Overreach. When the judiciary oversteps the
powers given to it, it may interfere with the proper
functioning of the legislative or executive organs of
government.
5.
Implications of Judicial Overreach
1. It destroys the spirit of the constitution as the
democracy stands on the separation of powers
between the organs.
2. It creates a conflict between the legislative and the
judicial system. As the message which is conveyed
with these decisions among the people is of legislative
inactivity.
3. When Judicial activism helps in strengthening the
people’s faith in the judiciary, the very act of overreach
destroys it. As it appears an act of ‘tyranny of
unelected’ in a democracy where elected
representatives rule.
4. It reduces the trust of the people in public institutions
which can be dangerous for democracy.
5. It is a waste of Judicial time, which can otherwise be
utilized for hearing various important matters relating to
public importance pending before the court.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
AND JUDICIAL
OVERREACH (ARTICLE
142)
Context: Judiciary is increasingly being attacked by civil
society for its new orientation towards the philosophy of
political executive and becoming a part of partisan politics.
Judicial activism:
Way-forward: