By: Anchal Agrawal
Introduction
In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in interpreting and upholding the Constitution. Over the years, Indian courts have gone beyond traditional boundaries to address gaps left by the legislature and executive—a phenomenon widely known as judicial activism. This proactive approach, especially in matters of public interest, has shaped social and political discourse and safeguarded fundamental rights. While judicial activism has often been praised as a tool for social justice and accountability, it has also drawn criticism for encroaching upon the domain of elected bodies. This blog explores the concept of judicial activism, its evolution in India, key judgments, and the ongoing debate over its scope and limits.
WHAT IS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?
Judicial activism refers to the active role played by the judiciary in interpreting laws and the Constitution to promote justice, particularly when other branches of government fail to act. It often involves the courts stepping beyond strict legal interpretation to address social, political, or economic issues—especially in cases of legislative or executive inaction. In India, judicial activism is closely linked to the rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), where the courts take up matters of public concern even without a formal petition from an affected party. While it aims to protect rights and uphold constitutional values, judicial activism also raises questions about the limits of judicial power in a democratic framework.
EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
1. Due process of law
The evolution of judicial activism in India can be traced through key cases that transformed the interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. In the early years, the Supreme Court’s interpretation was narrow, as seen in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950),[1] where the Court held that as long as a law was enacted to deprive someone of liberty, it did not violate Article 21. The Court rejected the principle of “due process of law,” which ensures that laws are fair and just, instead adopting the principle of “procedure established by law.” This limited approach reflected judicial restraint, where the Court chose not to interfere with legislative and executive decisions, even if they had a detrimental impact on individual rights. However, this judicial passivity was challenged during the Emergency period and the controversial ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) [2]case, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, where the Court failed to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. In this case, the majority held that citizens had no right to approach the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights, essentially endorsing the government’s authoritarian actions. Only Justice H.R. Khanna dissented, arguing that the right to life and liberty was inalienable and could not be suspended, even in times of crisis. His dissent embodied judicial morality, which emphasizes that the judiciary’s duty is to uphold justice and safeguard rights, regardless of political pressures. This judicial failure led to a crisis of confidence in the judiciary, sparking a shift towards judicial activism, which was rooted in a commitment to judicial morality—ensuring that the law aligns with constitutional values and human rights. The pivotal moment came in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), [3]where the Supreme Court overruled its previous stance in Gopalan and held that any law depriving a person of their liberty under Article 21 must be “just, fair, and reasonable,” thus incorporating the principle of due process of law. This judgment marked a decisive turning point in the Court’s role, not only in interpreting laws but in ensuring that they met the standards of fairness and justice, and laid the groundwork for judicial activism .
2. Judicial Review
Judicial review is the constitutional power of the judiciary to examine and strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution. It was initially affirmed in Shankari Prasad (1951) and expanded in Golak Nath (1967), [4]where the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. The doctrine reached its most powerful form in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973),[5] where the Court laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that certain features of the Constitution—like judicial review, democracy, and the rule of law—could not be amended by Parliament. This principle was tested in the Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) [6]case, where an amendment passed to nullify a court verdict invalidating Indira Gandhi’s election was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Court held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure, and thus beyond parliamentary override. This ruling was a bold exercise of judicial review and a clear example of judicial activism, where the judiciary intervened to protect democratic principles against political overreach. Later, in Minerva Mills (1980)[7], the Court further reinforced that judicial review is itself a part of the basic structure, cementing the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution. Through these cases, judicial review evolved into a powerful tool of judicial activism, enabling the courts to uphold constitutional morality and defend individual rights against arbitrary state action.
3. Public Interest Litigation
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a judicial innovation that democratized access to justice in India, allowing any public-spirited individual or group to file a petition on behalf of marginalized or voiceless sections of society. It became a cornerstone of judicial activism, especially after the Emergency, as courts sought to protect fundamental rights where the executive and legislature had failed. The movement began with S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)[8], which broadened the concept of locus standi, allowing citizens to bring issues of public concern directly before the court. A landmark PIL case was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979[9]), where the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of newspaper reports and ordered the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners who had been languishing in jail for years without trial—highlighting the denial of Article 21 rights (right to life and personal liberty). Another historic PIL was M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,[10] which led to groundbreaking decisions on environmental protection. These cases exemplify how PIL became a powerful tool of judicial activism, allowing the judiciary to expand the interpretation of fundamental rights, promote social justice, and hold the state accountable for inaction or injustice.
4. Suo Motu Jurisdiction
When courts take up matters on their own (without a formal petition), it’s a form of activism through judicial initiative, often relying on media reports, letters, or public concern to trigger action.
5. Interpretation of Fundamental Rights
Judicial activism is reflected in the expansion of Article 21 to include the right to education, health, privacy (e.g., Puttaswamy case, 2017), clean environment, etc., going beyond the text to serve constitutional goals.
6. Basic Structure Doctrine
Formed in Keshavananda Bharati, it limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution and protects core values. Courts use this doctrine, via judicial review, to strike down laws that threaten democracy or rule of law—an example of constitutional activism.
CRITICISM AND JUDICIAL OVER REACH
While judicial activism has played a crucial role in advancing constitutional rights and social justice, it has also attracted criticism for crossing into the domain of the legislature and executive, thereby disturbing the principle of separation of powers. Critics argue that excessive judicial interference can lead to judicial overreach, where the courts begin to perform functions that belong to other branches of government. This was notably raised in the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008), where the Supreme Court itself cautioned against judicial activism that turns into judicial adventurism, stating that judges must not try to run the government. Additionally, the misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) has become a serious concern. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)[11], the Supreme Court dismissed a PIL filed for personal interest under the guise of environmental concern, warning that PILs must not become tools for publicity or private vengeance. These instances reflect that while judicial activism is essential to protect rights and fill legislative gaps, it must be exercised with judicial restraint and a commitment to constitutional boundaries, to preserve institutional balance and public trust.
CONCLUSION
Judicial activism has undeniably shaped the landscape of constitutional governance in India. By stepping in where the legislature or executive may falter, the judiciary has safeguarded fundamental rights, expanded the scope of justice, and strengthened democratic values. Through tools like judicial review, PILs, and expansive interpretations of constitutional provisions, courts have empowered the marginalized and upheld the rule of law. However, this power must be exercised with caution and judicial morality, respecting the doctrine of separation of powers. The line between activism and overreach is thin, and the judiciary must ensure that in seeking to protect constitutional ideals, it does not undermine the roles of other democratic institutions. A balanced approach, combining judicial courage with judicial restraint, is essential to preserve both judicial integrity and democratic harmony.
Frequently Asked Questions: Judicial Activism in India
1. What is Judicial Activism?
Judicial activism refers to the active role played by the judiciary in interpreting laws and the Constitution to promote justice, particularly when other branches of government fail to act. It involves courts stepping beyond strict legal interpretation to address social, political, or economic issues, especially in cases of legislative or executive inaction.
2. How did Judicial Activism evolve in India?
Judicial activism in India evolved through several key phases: starting with judicial restraint in the early years (A.K. Gopalan case, 1950), moving through the crisis during the Emergency period (ADM Jabalpur case, 1976), and finally emerging strongly after the landmark Maneka Gandhi case (1978) which established the principle of due process of law.
3. What was the significance of the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case?
The Maneka Gandhi case marked a decisive turning point in Indian jurisprudence. The Supreme Court overruled its previous stance in the Gopalan case and held that any law depriving a person of liberty under Article 21 must be “just, fair, and reasonable,” thus incorporating the principle of due process of law and laying the groundwork for judicial activism.
4. What is the Basic Structure Doctrine?
The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holds that certain features of the Constitution—like judicial review, democracy, and the rule of law—cannot be amended by Parliament. This doctrine protects the core values of the Constitution from arbitrary changes.
5. How did Public Interest Litigation (PIL) contribute to Judicial Activism?
PIL democratized access to justice by allowing any public-spirited individual or group to file petitions on behalf of marginalized sections of society. It became a powerful tool of judicial activism, enabling courts to take up matters of public concern even without formal petitions from affected parties.
6. What was the impact of the ADM Jabalpur case (1976)?
The ADM Jabalpur case, also known as the Habeas Corpus case, was a controversial decision where the Supreme Court majority held that citizens had no right to approach the Court for enforcement of fundamental rights during Emergency. This judicial failure led to a crisis of confidence and sparked the shift towards judicial activism.
7. What is Suo Motu Jurisdiction?
Suo Motu Jurisdiction refers to the power of courts to take up matters on their own initiative without a formal petition. Courts often rely on media reports, letters, or public concern to trigger action, representing a form of judicial activism through judicial initiative.
8. How has Article 21 been expanded through Judicial Activism?
Through judicial activism, Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) has been expanded to include various rights such as the right to education, health, privacy (Puttaswamy case, 2017), clean environment, and many others, going beyond the literal text to serve constitutional goals.
9. What are the main criticisms of Judicial Activism?
Critics argue that excessive judicial activism can lead to judicial overreach, where courts begin to perform functions belonging to other branches of government, thereby disturbing the principle of separation of powers. There are also concerns about the misuse of PILs for personal gain or publicity.
10. What is the difference between Due Process of Law and Procedure Established by Law?
“Procedure Established by Law” means that if there is a law prescribing a procedure, it must be followed, regardless of whether it is fair or just. “Due Process of Law” ensures that laws must be fair, just, and reasonable. The Indian judiciary shifted from the former to the latter approach in the Maneka Gandhi case.
11. What was the significance of Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case?
Justice H.R. Khanna was the sole dissenting judge who argued that the right to life and liberty was inalienable and could not be suspended, even during Emergency. His dissent embodied judicial morality and later influenced the development of judicial activism in India.
12. How did the Hussainara Khatoon case contribute to PIL development?
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of newspaper reports and ordered the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners who had been languishing in jail without trial, highlighting how PIL could address systemic violations of Article 21 rights.
13. What is Judicial Review and how does it relate to Judicial Activism?
Judicial Review is the constitutional power of the judiciary to examine and strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution. It serves as a powerful tool of judicial activism, enabling courts to uphold constitutional morality and defend individual rights against arbitrary state action.
14. What role did the S.P. Gupta case play in PIL development?
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) broadened the concept of locus standi, allowing citizens to bring issues of public concern directly before the court. This case was instrumental in establishing the foundation for Public Interest Litigation in India.
15. How has environmental protection been advanced through Judicial Activism?
Environmental protection has been significantly advanced through cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which led to groundbreaking decisions on environmental protection. Courts have expanded Article 21 to include the right to a clean environment, demonstrating judicial activism in environmental matters.
16. What is the relationship between Judicial Activism and Separation of Powers?
While judicial activism allows courts to fill gaps left by legislative and executive inaction, it must be balanced against the principle of separation of powers. Excessive activism can lead to judicial overreach, where courts perform functions belonging to other branches of government.
17. How did the Indira Nehru Gandhi case demonstrate Judicial Review?
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), an amendment passed to nullify a court verdict invalidating Indira Gandhi’s election was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Court held that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure, demonstrating bold judicial review and activism.
18. What is Judicial Morality?
Judicial morality emphasizes that the judiciary’s duty is to uphold justice and safeguard rights, regardless of political pressures. It ensures that the law aligns with constitutional values and human rights, forming the ethical foundation for judicial activism.
19. How has the interpretation of Fundamental Rights evolved through Judicial Activism?
Judicial activism has led to the expansive interpretation of fundamental rights, particularly Article 21, which now encompasses rights to education, health, privacy, clean environment, and many others that were not explicitly mentioned in the original constitutional text.
20. What was the impact of the Golak Nath case on Judicial Review?
In Golak Nath (1967), the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, expanding the scope of judicial review. This case was later overruled by Keshavananda Bharati, but it contributed to the evolution of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
21. How do courts exercise Suo Motu powers in practice?
Courts exercise suo motu powers by taking cognizance of issues based on newspaper reports, letters from concerned citizens, or matters of urgent public importance. This allows the judiciary to address issues that might not otherwise come before the court through formal litigation.
22. What is the significance of the Minerva Mills case?
Minerva Mills (1980) reinforced that judicial review is itself a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, cementing the judiciary’s role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and further strengthening the foundation of judicial activism.
23. How can PIL be misused and what safeguards exist?
PIL can be misused for personal gain, publicity, or private vengeance rather than genuine public interest. The Supreme Court, as in Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), has warned against such misuse and has established guidelines to prevent frivolous PILs.
24. What is the difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Adventurism?
Judicial activism involves legitimate judicial intervention to protect constitutional rights and fill gaps in governance. Judicial adventurism, as cautioned in Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008), refers to excessive judicial interference that crosses constitutional boundaries and attempts to run the government.
25. How does Judicial Activism protect marginalized sections of society?
Judicial activism protects marginalized sections through PIL, which allows representation of voiceless communities, expansive interpretation of fundamental rights, and proactive judicial intervention in cases of systemic violations of rights, ensuring access to justice for all sections of society.
26. What is the concept of Locus Standi in PIL?
Locus Standi refers to the legal standing or right to bring a matter before the court. In PIL, this concept has been liberalized to allow any concerned citizen to approach the court on behalf of those who cannot access justice themselves, democratizing the judicial process.
27. How did the Emergency period influence Judicial Activism?
The Emergency period (1975-77) exposed the dangers of judicial passivity and highlighted the need for an active judiciary. The failure of courts during this period, particularly in the ADM Jabalpur case, led to a fundamental shift towards judicial activism in the post-Emergency era.
28. What role does Constitutional Morality play in Judicial Activism?
Constitutional morality refers to the adherence to constitutional values and principles rather than just the letter of the law. It guides judicial activism by ensuring that court decisions align with the spirit of the Constitution and promote justice, equality, and human dignity.
29. How has the Right to Privacy evolved through Judicial Activism?
The Right to Privacy, recognized in the landmark Puttaswamy case (2017), demonstrates judicial activism in expanding Article 21. The Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right, overruling previous judgments and adapting constitutional interpretation to contemporary needs.
30. What is the balance between Judicial Courage and Judicial Restraint?
Judicial courage involves taking bold decisions to protect constitutional rights and uphold justice, while judicial restraint ensures that courts do not overstep their constitutional boundaries. A balanced approach combining both is essential for effective judicial activism without undermining democratic institutions.
31. How do landmark cases shape Judicial Activism precedents?
Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi, Keshavananda Bharati, and various PIL cases establish precedents that guide future judicial activism. These precedents create a framework for courts to intervene in matters of public importance while maintaining constitutional boundaries.
32. What is the role of media in triggering Judicial Activism?
Media plays a crucial role in bringing public issues to judicial attention through investigative reporting and highlighting systemic failures. Courts often take suo motu cognizance based on credible media reports, making media an important catalyst for judicial activism.
33. How does Judicial Activism address executive and legislative failures?
When the executive fails to implement policies or the legislature fails to enact necessary laws, judicial activism steps in to ensure constitutional rights are protected. Courts issue directions, guidelines, and mandamus to compel action from other branches of government.
34. What are the institutional implications of Judicial Activism?
Judicial activism affects the balance between the three branches of government. While it strengthens the judiciary’s role as protector of rights, it also raises questions about democratic accountability and the proper limits of judicial power in a constitutional democracy.
35. How is Judicial Activism relevant in contemporary India?
In contemporary India, judicial activism continues to address issues like environmental protection, corruption, human rights violations, and social justice. It remains relevant for protecting constitutional values and ensuring accountability in governance, while requiring careful balance to maintain institutional harmony.
Disclaimer
This blog is intended for informational and academic purposes only. It reflects a general analysis of judicial activism in India and does not constitute legal advice. The cases mentioned are discussed in a summarised form for educational clarity. Readers are encouraged to consult official judgments or legal professionals for specific legal interpretations or applications.
[1] AIR 1950 SC 27
[2] AIR 1976 SC 1207
[3] AIR 1978 SC 597
[4] AIR 1967 SC 1643
[5] AIR 1973 SC 1461
[6] AIR 1975 SC 2299
[7] AIR 1980 SC 1789
[8] AIR 1982 SC 149
[9] AIR 1979 SC 1360
[10] AIR 1987 SC 1086
[11] AIR 1991 SC 420
Also Read:
