THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN SAFE- GUARDING THE

INTEREST OF PUBLIC

JITENDRA DHAKER
STUDENT VIII SEM
B.A..L.L.B. (H) ALS AUMP
[email protected]
MOB. NO. 9407485100

ABSTRACT

The scope of judicial activism not a limited one. It is used to look in the matters and enforce
what is beneficial for the society at large. The word “JUSTICE” has no end, this critically
tells that justice is for all, ‘rich or poor, strong or weak’, even the king and queen were
entrusted by karma to provide justice. The object behind the research paper is focused on the
expansion of judicial activism in Indian democracy. The judicial activism in India had
touched almost every aspect of life to provide positive justice. Many a times the right to
judicial review and judicial activism act as a boon for the weaker section of society in
protecting their rights by mere filling of a social interest litigation or a public interest
litigation. Many a times judicial intervention into the matter of executive and legislature have
provided society with the upper hand in getting justice. Judicial system is a means of
providing ‘JUSTICE ‘to all, and also to take all relevant and possible steps to protect the
interest of JUSTICE. Judicial activism legal framework in Indian constitution integration
towards fundamental rights.
INTRODUCTION

The democratic government rests on the three pillars i.e. legislature, executive and
judiciary . the three pillars of the government constitute the organs of government. The
powers and the functions are provided in the constitution of India , which constitute or forms
the supreme law of land . the primary function of the legislature is to make law and that of
executive is to execute law made by legislature and judiciary is to enforce law and guarantee
that justice is served. The Indian constitution has assigned three roles to the highest judicial
system . They are as follow:

1. Is to interpret the constitution to solve any ambiguity in language of any provision of

the constitution ,also to provide interpretation of various statues .
2. As the protector of fundamental rights which are guaranteed under constitution for
its citizens.
3. To resolve matters transferred from the subordinate courts, appeals , etc

Judicial activism may be described as judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal
or political considerations rather than on existing law1.

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-

making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors,
to guide their decisions." Judicial activism means active role played by the judiciary in
promoting justice. Judicial Activism to define broadly is the assumption of an active role on
the part of the judiciary.2 Ronald Dworkin, rejects a “strict interpretation” of the
constitutional text because it limits constitutional rights “to those recognized by a limited
group of people at a fixed date of history.”

The word of Justice J.S Verma , describe Judicial Activism as “ the active process of
implementation of the rule of law, essential for the preservation of a functional democracy”.

In the modern democratic world , judicial activism can be defined as a mechanism which is
used to curb legislative defects and executive using its power despotically by enforcing
constitutional limits. that is when executive and legislature fail in their responsibility, then
The Constitution of India operates in happy harmony with the instrumentalities of the
executive and the legislature. But to be truly great, the judiciary exercising democratic power
must enjoy independence of a high order. But independence could become dangerous and
undemocratic unless there is a constitutional discipline with rules of good conduct and

1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
2
Chaterji Susanta, “ ‘For Public Administration’ Is judicial activism really deterrent to legislative anarchy and
executive tyranny ? “, The Administrator, Vol XLII, April-June 1997, p9, at p11
accountability: without these, the robes may prove arrogant.3 The believe behind judicial
activism is that judges act as a independent “trustee” or play a role as a independent policy
makers. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or
independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as
interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar
opposite of judicial restraint. Failure on part of the legislative and executive wings of the
Government to provide ‘good governance’ makes judicial activism an imperative one.

Mr.Storable said the institution of public interest litigation (PIL) had helped to secure
''fundamental rights as a living reality for some sections of society.'' However, the senior
Supreme Court lawyer cautioned that PIL ''could not be treated as a pill for every ill'' and said
that some had sought to use it as an instrument of blackmail and oppression of prisoners. In
simple terms judicial activism is a practice by the judges that does not involve the balance of
law, instead it hampers it. In judicial activism, the judge places his final decision with his heart
and mind, which is emotionally handled.

EVOLUTON OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

The origin of judicial activism in the eye of judicial review can be traced from the unwritten
constitution of Britain during Stuart period of (1603-1688). In year 1610 the power of judicial
review was asserted for first time in Britain through the activism of justice COKE . , Chief
Justice Coke declared that if a law made by the Parliament violated the principles of ‘common
law’ and `reason’ then the courts might review and adjudge it as void. Coke’s theory of judicial
review was repeated by Sir Henry Hobart in 1615 and again in 1702 by Sir John Holt. In
Marbury v. Madison (1803) US SC : Marbury v. Madison was the first US Supreme Court
case to strike down an Act of Congress as unconstitutional. Since that time, the federal courts
have exercised the power of judicial review.

The Supreme Court of US ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the
constitutionality of Acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the
Constitution.

Judicial Activism in India

Judicial activism in India means the power that vests in Supreme Court and the high courts
but not on the sub-ordinate courts to declare the laws as unconstitutional and void if it
infringes or if the law is inconsistent with one or more provisions of the constitution.

3
Http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3785898.ece
According to SP Sathe “a court giving a new meaning to the provision so as to suit the
changing social or economic conditions or expanding the horizons of the rights of the
individual is said to be an activist court.”4

Evolution of Judicial Activism in India

The history of judicial activism can be traced back to 1893 when justice Mehmood of the
Allahabad High Court delivered a dissenting judgement of a under-trial who did not have
money to engage a lawyer, this judgement showed the seed of an activism in India.

Supreme Court of as in the I950s but slowly started acquiring more power through
constitutional interpretation . Its transformation into an activist court has been gradual and
imperceptible. In fact the roots of judicial activism are to be seen in the court’s early assertion
regarding the nature of judicial review.

Supreme Court has attained the zenith of its powers in 1973 with its claim to invalidate even an
amendment of the Constitution on substantive grounds. As an eminent lawyer sums up, from
about 1974, the court’s emphasis has shifted to correcting the executive actions of Government
for their un-reasonableness particularly in Administrative matters5

Landmark Judgments :

 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461Justice Khanna said that
Judicial Review has become an integral part of our Constitutional system and if the
provisions of the Statutes are to be found violative of any of the Articles of the Constitution
which is the touchstone for the validity of all the laws, the Supreme Court and the High
Courts are empowered to strike down the said provisions of the Statutes.

 Sajjan Singh vs. state of Rajasthan

Two dissenting judges in Sajjan Singh v. RajasthanAIR 1965 SC 845 case raised doubts
whether the fundamental rights of citizens could become a plaything of the majority party in
Parliament. The judges had the opinion that the law passed by the Legislature can be
declared void if it violates the Fundamental Rights.

 Minerva Mills v. Union of India

In his minority judgment in Minerva Mills v. Union of India Bhagwati, J., observed:

“It is the judiciary to uphold the constitution values and to enforce the constitutional
limitations. That is the essence of the rule of the law, which inter alia requires that ‘the
exercise of the powers by the Government it be the legislature or the executive or any other

4
Judicial Activism in India ,SatyaranjanPurushottamSathe, Oxford University Press, 2002
5
Andhyarujina, T.R: Judicial Activism & Constitutional Democracy in India, (Bom.: 1992) at p.29
authority, be conditioned by the constitution and the law.’ The power of the Judicial Review
is an integral part of the constitution system…. the power of judicial review…. Part of the
basic structure of the Constitution.”

SEPARATION OF POWER AND JUDICIAL ACTVISM

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers deals with the mutual relations between the three
organs of the Government namely legislature, executive and judiciary. The origin of this
principle goes back to the period of Plato and Aristotle. It was Aristotle who for the first time
classified the functions of the Government into three categories viz., deliberative, magisterial
and judicial Locks categorized the powers of the Government into three parts namely:
continuous executive power, discontinuous legislative power and federative power.
MONTESQUIUE For the first time in his book , L. Esprit Des Lois (Spirit of Laws)
published in 1748. Enunciated the principle of separation of power. The doctrine of
separation of power in its true sense is found to be very rigid and this is one of the reasons
that y it is not accepted by a large number of countries in the world. The main object as per
Montesquieu in the Doctrine of separation of power is that there should be government of law
rather than having desire of the official. Another most important feature of the doctrine is
that there should be independence of judiciary i.e. it should be free from the other organs of
the state and if it is so then justice would be delivered properly. The doctrine of separation of
powers has no place in strict sense in Indian Constitution, but the functions of different
organs of the Government have been sufficiently differentiated, so that one organ of the
Government could not usurp the function of another.

The first major judgment by the judiciary in relation to Doctrine of separation of power was
in Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab.6The court in the above case was of the opinion that the
Doctrine of separation of power was not fully accepted in India. Later in I.C. GolakNath v.
State of Punjab7SubhaRao, C.J opined that-

“The constitution brings into existence different constitutional entitles, namely the union, the
state and the union territories. It creates three major instruments of power, namely the
Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It demarcates their jurisdiction minutely and
expects them to exercise their respective powers without overstepping their limits. They
should function with the spheres allotted to them.”8

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

There were times when the judiciary had faced challenges in maintaining and preserving the
Doctrine of separation of power and it has in this process of preservation has delivered
landmark judgments which clearly talks about the independence of judiciary as well as the
success of judiciary in India for the last six decades.

6
AIR 1955 SC 549.
7
1967 AIR 1643.
8
Ibid.
 It can be said that this rule of separation of power in today’s scenario cannot work out in a
proper way. The need is felt for a new and better execution of the doctrine which would
serve the purpose of the present democratic need, whether it is a parliamentary or presidential
type of government. If we take the background of the major countries like U.S.A, U.K, India,
Russia, France, Germany, Spain and U.A.E, it can be clearly seen that if there is no complete
separation of power that Montesquieu had advocated. All the organs of the Government are
subject to scrutiny each other by way of checks and balance. Thus, it can be better said that
all the organs of the government should behave in a way that they do not violate the principal
law or the rule of law of the country and it should be upheld in all circumstances for the
better protection of the rights, liberties and freedoms of the citizens .This is the doctrine of
Self Restraint, whereby, all the organs try to fulfil the aspirations of the nation and uphold the
rule of law, without interfering into the domain of the other. The Constitution must in all
circumstances be considered supreme, and the laws made by the legislature should pass the
test of reasonableness and the objectives of the Constitution. 9

Separation of power is the essential feature of the Democratic Republic established under our
Constitution by division of powers between the three important wings of the State: The
Parliament and State Legislatures, the Executive and the Judiciary. However there is absence
of specific provisions in the Constitution exclusively vesting in legislative powers in the
legislature and judicial powers in the judiciary was noticed in Delhi Laws in 1951, but the
essence of doctrine of separation of powers and of constitutional limitation was accepted as a
feature of basic structure of the Constitution in Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain10. Judicial
review and activism are important element of our system of justice to keep a check on the
legislature who are the law makers of the land, so that they do not exceed their powers and
work within the allowances that the constitution has made for them. the separation of the
judiciary from the other organs though is taken very seriously so that the common man’s
liberty can in no circumstances be compromised and a fair remedy is available to any
individual citizen of the state. Thus the Indian Constitution, which is an extremely carefully
planned document designed to uphold the integrity and liberty of every citizen, has not in its
entirety embraced the doctrine of separation of powers but has indeed drawn a lot from the
concept and kept it as a guiding principle. But the doctrine of Separation of Powers has been
included in our basic structure doctrine as has been ruled and upheld by the Supreme Court in
a number of cases. Thus it holds a position of utmost importance, albeit has been modified to
suit the needs of a modern all pervasive state11.

Disturbing trend in judicial activisim

9
case citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225)

10
1975 AIR 865.
11
Justice, Judicracy and Democracy in India: Boundaries and Breaches Hardcover – Import, by
SudhanshuRanjan (Author), 25 Sep 2012
Judicial activism is not an easy concept to define. It means different things to different
persons. Critics denounce judicial decisions as activist when they do not agree with them. In
India, the opening up of access to courts to the poor, indigent and disadvantaged sections of
the nation through Public Interest Litigation, popularly known by its acronym PIL, is
unexceptionable judicial activism. From 1979, the judiciary led by the Supreme Court in
India became relevant to the nation in a manner which is not contemplated by the makers of
the Constitution and became an active participant in providing people with social justice.It is
a matter of concern that over the years this original, beneficial and unexceptionable character
of the Court’s activism in PIL has been largely converted into a general supervisory
jurisdiction to correct actions and policies of government, public bodies and authorities. This
is a type of judicial activism unparalleled in any other judiciary.

For basic rights

PIL jurisdiction began haltingly with little idea of its potential when the Supreme Court, in
1979, entertained complaints by social activists drawing the attention of the Court to the
conditions of certain sections of society or institutions which were deprived of their basic
rights.

In 1979, Supreme Court advocate Kapila Hingorani drew the Court’s attention to a series of
articles in a newspaper exposing of undertrial prisoners of BIHAR , most of whom had
served pretrial detention more than the period they could have been imprisoned if convicted.
Sunil Batra, a prisoner, wrote a letter to Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court drawing
his attention to torture by prison authorities and the miserable conditions of prisoners in jails.
This was taken up as a petition and the Court passed orders for humane conditions in jails. In
1980, two professors of law wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper describing the very
unfair conditions of detention in the Agra Protective House for Women which was made the
basis of a writ petition in the Supreme Court. The exploitation of workmen at construction
sites in violation of labour laws was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court by a letter.
The slave-like condition of bonded labourers in quarries was brought to the attention of the
Court by a social activist organisation. A journalist moved the court against the evictions of
pavement dwellers of Bombay.

In dealing with such cases, the Court evolved a new regime of rights of citizens and
obligations of the State and devised new methods for its accountability. In 1982, Justice P.N.
Bhagwati, correctly stated the purpose of PIL as it originated. He emphasised that PIL “ a
strategic arm of the legal aid movement which is intended to bring justice within the reach of
the poor masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind
of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation.”

No longer were the Court’s principles drawn from landlords, businessmen, corporations and
affluent persons. With PIL, the common man, the disadvantaged and marginalised sections of
society had also easy access to the Court with the help of social activists.

The new intervention

The social action dimension of PIL has been diluted and eclipsed by another type of “public
cause litigation” in courts. In this type of litigation, the court’s intervention is not sought for
enforcing the rights of the disadvantaged or poor sections of the society but simply for
correcting the actions or omissions of the executive or public officials or departments of
government or public bodies. Examples of this type of intervention by the Court are
innumerable. In the interest of preventing pollution, the Supreme Court ordered control over
automobile emissions, air and noise and traffic pollution, gave orders for parking charges,
wearing of helmets in cities, cleanliness in housing colonies, disposal of garbage, control of
traffic in New Delhi, made compulsory the wearing of seat belts, ordered action plans to
control and prevent the monkey menace in cities and towns, ordered measures to prevent
accidents at unmanned railway level crossings, prevent ragging of college freshmen, for
collection and storage in blood banks, and for control of loudspeakers and banning of fire
crackers.

In recent orders, the Supreme Court has directed the most complex engineering of
interlinking rivers in India. The Court has passed orders banning the pasting of black film on
automobile windows. On its own, the Court has taken notice of Baba Ramdev being forcibly
evicted from the Ramlila grounds by the Delhi Administration and censured it. The Court has
ordered the exclusion of tourists in the core area of tiger reserves. All these managerial
exercises by the Court are hung on the dubious jurisdictional peg of enforcing fundamental
rights under Article 32 of the Constitution. In reality, no fundamental rights of individuals or
any legal issues are at all involved in such cases. The Court is only moved for better
governance and administration, which does not involve the exercise of any proper judicial
function.

In its most activist and controversial interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
took away the constitutionally conferred power of the President of India to appoint judges
after consultation with the Chief Justice, and appropriated this power in the Chief Justice of
India and a collegium of four judges. In no Constitution in the world is the power to select
and appoint judges conferred on the judges themselves.

The Court is made the monitor of the conduct of investigating and prosecution agencies who
are perceived to have failed or neglected to investigate and prosecute ministers and officials
of government. Cases of this type are the investigation and prosecution of ministers and
officials believed to be involved in the Jain Hawala case, the fodder scam involving the
former Chief Minister of Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Taj Corridor case involving the
former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati, and the recent prosecution of the Telecom
Minister and officials in the 2G Telecom scam case by the Supreme Court.

Even proceedings of Legislatures are controlled by the Court. In the Jharkhand Legislative
Assembly case, the Supreme Court ordered the Assembly to conduct a Motion of Confidence
and ordered the Speaker to conduct proceedings according to a prescribed agenda and not to
entertain any other business. Its proceedings were ordered to be recorded for reporting to the
Court. These orders were made in spite of Article 212 of the Constitution which states that
Courts are not to inquire into any proceedings of the legislature.
Justice Jackson of the U.S. has aptly said: “ The doctrine of judicial activism which justifies
easy and constant readiness to set aside decisions of other branches of Government is wholly
incompatible with a faith in democracy and in so far it encourages a belief that judges should
be left to correct the result of public indifference it is a vicious teaching.” Unless the
parameters of PIL are strictly formulated by the Supreme Court and strictly observed, PIL
which is so necessary in India, is in danger of becoming diffuse, unprincipled, encroaching
into the functions of other branches of government and ineffective by its indiscriminate use.

Judicial activism is gaining prominence in the present days. In the form of Public Interest
Litigation (PIL), citizens in getting access to justice.

Judiciary has become the centre of controversy, in the recent past, on account of the sudden
level of judicial intervention. The area of judicial intervention has been steadily expanding
through the device of public interest litigation.

The judiciary has shed its pro-status-quo approach and taken upon itself the duty to enforce
the basic rights of the poor and vulnerable sections of society, by progressive interpretation
and positive action.

The Supreme Court has developed new methods of dispensing justice to the masses through
the public interest litigation. Former Chief Justice PN. Bhagwati, under whose leadership
public interest litigation attained a new dimension comments that "the supreme court has
developed several new commitments.

The term 'judicial activism' is intended to refer to, and cover, the action of the court in excess
of, and beyond the power of judicial review. From one angle it is said to be an act in excess
of, or without, jurisdiction. The Constitution does not confer any authority or jurisdiction for
'activism' as such on the Court.

Judicial activism refers to the interference of the judiciary in the legislative and executive
fields. It mainly occurs due to the non-activity of the other organs of the government.

In short, judicial activism means that instead of judicial restraint, the Supreme Court and
other lower courts become activists and compel the authority to act and sometimes also direct
the government regarding policies and also matters of administration.
FACTORS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM-

judicial activism has arised mainly due to the following facorts:-

 Judicial activism has arisen mainly due to the failure of the executive and legislatures
to act.
 it has arisen also due to the fact that there is a doubt that the legislature and executive
have failed to deliver the goods.
 it occurs because the entire system has been plagued by ineffectiveness and
inactiveness.
 The violation of basic human rights has also led to judicial activism. Finally, due to
the misuse and abuse of some of the provisions of the Constitution, judicial activism
has gained significance.

(i) In case of a hung parliament where the government is very weak and instable.

(ii) When the governments fail to protect the basic rights of the citizens or provide an honest,
efficient and just system of law and administration,

(iii)Finally, the court may on its own try to expand its jurisdiction and confer on themselves
more functions and powers.

Areas of Judicial Activism -

During the past decade, many instances of judicial activism have gained prominence. The
areas in which judiciary has become active are health, child labour, political corruption,
environment, education, etc.

Through various cases relating to Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Bihar Under trials, Punjab Police,
Bombay Pavement Dwellers, Bihar Care Home cases, the judiciary has shown its firm
commitment to participatory justice, just standards of procedures, immediate access to
justice, and preventing arbitrary state action.

RIGHT TO LIFE AND JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

The assessment of judges and their way breaking execution as to changing the elements of
article 21. American Constitution's idea of Due process was at last encapsulated in the words
"technique set up by law".The present subject will manage the development of the
arrangement because of the transformation made by the MANEKA GANDHI Judgment. The
idea of PIL began coming to fruition, which was spearheaded by the colossal Equity P.N
Bhagwati who took comprehension of the way that in specific conditions, A PIL might be
presented in an official courtroom by the court itself (suomoto), as opposed to the abused
party or another outsider. Post Maneka Gandhi's case, the supreme Court found out
that,Keeping in mind the end goal to regard a great crucial right, it is a bit much that it ought
to be explicitly expressed in the constitution as major right. Political, social and economical
changes in the nation involve the acknowledgment of new rights. The law develops to meet
the requests of the steadily advancing society.Thus the supreme Court has discovered Article
21 to fuse the substantive flexibility that serves as intends to evacuate real territories, for
example, destitution, poor financial open doors and additionally methodical social hardship.
A most huge element of extension of article 21 has been that a number of the Non-legitimate
Mandate Standards have been changed over into ENFORCEABLE Central RIGHTS by the
hands of judges.Guarantees of economic opportunities and protection against social
deprivations were established in various decisions:

 Quality of life
 Right to Livelihood
 Right to medical care
  Right to Die
 Sexual Harassment
 Ecology and Environment
 Right to Privacy
 Right to Privacy

The constitution does not give in particular and express terms any privilege to protection all
things considered Right to Privacy is not hampered as a Fundamental Right in the
Constitution. Be that as it may, such a privilege has been winnowed by the Supreme Court
from Art 21 and a few different arrangements of the Constitution read with the Directive
Principles of State Policy.As said over, the Kharak Singh12 was the first of its own kind, to
initiate the possibility of "security" where issues were raised with respect to suggesting the
privilege to protection from existing basic rights, for example, Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e)
and 21. Amid that time, J SubbaRao had remarked“The right to personal liberty takes in not
only a right to be free from restrictions but also free from encroachments on his private life”
In 1965, the Supreme Court of India heard and chose State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Kaushaliyaa case13 which included the topic of whether ladies who are occupied with
prostitution can be coercively expelled from their homes and places of occupation, or whether
they were entitled, alongside different natives of India, to the major ideal to move
uninhibitedly all through the region of India, and to dwell and settle in any part of the domain
of India. In its choice, the Supreme Court denied them this correct holding that "the exercises
of a whore in a specific region are so subversive of open ethics thus dangerous of general
wellbeing that it is essential in broad daylight enthusiasm to extradite her from that place. The
statutory confinements forced by the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act on whores, were
maintained by the Court as naturally passable "sensible limitations" on their developments. A
fascinating point was achieved in the renowned NAZ FOUNDATION CASE. The applicants
contended 'such that the restriction of certain private, consensual sexual relations (gay
person) gave by Section 377 IPC preposterously abbreviates the privilege of protection and
pride inside the ambit of ideal to life and freedom under Article 21 [which] can be condensed
just for a convincing state intrigue which, in its accommodation, is out of order here' An
intriguing point was accomplished in the prestigious NAZ FOUNDATION CASE14. The
candidates battled 'with the end goal that the confinement of certain private, consensual
sexual relations (gay individual) gave by Section 377 IPC outrageously curtails the benefit of
assurance and pride inside the ambit of perfect to life and opportunity under Article 21
[which] can be dense only for a persuading state interest which, in its convenience, is out of
request here' However this case endured an enormous difficulty when Supreme Court upset
the decision of the Delhi High Court censuring homosexuality by holding Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code legitimate and requesting the lawmaking body to make proper move
relating to the abolishment of this specific arrangement. Ideal to protection has been
henceforth denied to any individual who confers the offense under Section 377.Justice
12
1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
13
1964 AIR 416, 1964 SCR (4)1002
14
2010 CriLJ 94
Patanjali Shastri held that article 21 is not designed to afford protection against
unfringements by the executive or individuals.

Judicial activism has got considerable impacts on relationship between executive and
judiciary.
1. To curb executive tyranny by enforcing constitutional limitations, when executive fails in
its responsibilities.
2. Though addresses the concerns of people well by doctrine of compassion, it displaces
existing laws and creates more legal uncertainties than that are necessary.
3. Results in judicial tyranny where jugdes would be ruling based on personal or political
emotions.
4. Results in diversion of institutional resources for purposes other than those constitutionally
assigned.
5. Would strengthen the causes of peoples across various sections by increasing
governmental liability towards popular masses.
IMPACT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ON ORGANS OF GOVERMENT:-

Judicial activism has got considerable impacts on relationship between executive and
judiciary.

1. To curb executive tyranny by enforcing constitutional limitations, when executive fails in

its responsibilities.

2. Though addresses the concerns of people well by doctrine of compassion, it displaces

existing laws and creates more legal uncertainties than that are necessary.

3. Results in judicial tyranny where jugdes would be ruling based on personal or political
emotions.

4. Results in diversion of institutional resources for purposes other than those constitutionally
assigned.

5. Would strengthen the causes of peoples across various sections by increasing

governmental liability towards popular masses.

Positive impact of judicial activism :- Access to social and economic justice as mentioned in
Preamble and DPSP.- enlarging the scope of Justice.
1) 2g corruption case
2)coal block allocations
3) separate jails for women prisonners
4) pollution of ganges , CNG ,green benches.
5) Electoral reforms
Negative impact Judicial adventurism :-

1) Interfere in working of legislature eg -Jharkhand despite article 212 clearly stating against
it.
2) .even interfering in military combat operation in 1993 in J&K.

Conclusion:-

Judicial activism philosophy that courts should take an active role in solving social,
economic, and political problems. Court should uphold the ‘’guardian ethic’’ they act as a
guardian of the people.

Examples of judicial activism:

1. Requiring states to provide legal aid for the poor.

2. Requiring prison modernization.
3. Requiring states to educate undocumented aliens.
4. Establishing the ‘’one man, one vote’’ principle to reapportionment.

The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory

construction, and separation of powers. There is a thin line between activism and overreach.
While judicial activism is considered positive to supplement the fallings of the executive, but
the overreach into the executive’s domain is considered an intrusion into the proper
functioning of democracy.