Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

Judicial activism has emerged as a powerful instrument to uphold constitutional values, fundamental rights, and the rule of law in India. However, while it often acts as a safeguard against executive and legislative failures, it also raises concerns about judicial overreach and democratic balance, undermining the mandate of Art 50 (Separation of Power).

Body:

Judicial Activism as a Safeguard to Democratic Governance: 

• Protection of Fundamental Rights and civil liberties: Courts have intervened when other organs failed to protect citizens’ rights.
  • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded Article 21 by linking “procedure established by law” with fairness, reasonableness, and due process.
• Judicial response to legislative and executive vacuum: Activism has filled governance gaps where laws were absent or ineffective.
  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) laid down guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of legislation.
• Strengthening accountability and rule of law: Courts have acted against arbitrary executive action and abuse of power.
  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) evolved the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring parliamentary supremacy does not undermine constitutional democracy.
• Expansion of access to justice through PILs: Public Interest Litigation democratized judicial access for marginalized groups.
  • Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) addressed undertrial prisoners’ rights and led to prison reforms.
• Environmental and social governance interventions: Judicial activism has promoted sustainable development and environmental protection.
  • The MC Mehta case resulted in pollution control norms, vehicular emission standards, and protection of the Taj Trapezium Zone.

Judicial Activism as a Challenge to Democratic Governance: 

• Judicial overreach into executive and legislative domains: Courts at times issue detailed policy directions, blurring separation of powers.
  • Common Cause v. Union of India 2018(legalizing passive euthanasia and Living Wills) and frequent monitoring of executive schemes raised concerns of “judicial governance.”
• Erosion of democratic accountability: Judges are unelected and not directly accountable to the public, unlike legislators and executives.
  
  • Excessive judicial intervention may dilute the mandate of elected representatives.
  • For example, in 2024, the Supreme Court of India unanimously struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme, which allowed anonymous donations to political parties. 
    • This serves as a nuanced example of the "accountability vs. intervention" debate.
• Institutional competence and expertise limitations: Courts may lack technical expertise to design or supervise complex policies.
  • Example: In Divisional Manager, (Aravali Golf Course v. Chander Hass 2008), the Supreme Court itself warned against this trend, noting that judges must not take over the functions of the legislature or executive because they lack the technical "know-how" of governance.
• Inconsistency and uncertainty in policymaking: Frequent judicial directions can create uncertainty for long-term governance planning.
  • NJAC judgment (2015), while protecting judicial independence, was criticised for blocking legislative reform without offering a viable alternative.
• Risk of judicial populism: Expanding PIL jurisdiction has occasionally led to frivolous petitions and media-driven interventions, diverting courts from core adjudicatory functions.

Measures to Maintain Balance between Judicial Activism and Democratic Governance: 

• Judicial Restraint Guided By Clear Standards: Courts should intervene only in cases of rights violations or governance vacuum, applying necessity and proportionality.
  • The Law Commission of India has emphasised consistency and restraint to prevent ad-hoc judicial policymaking.
• Reforming The PIL Mechanism: Stricter screening of PILs can curb misuse and judicial populism.
  • Supreme Court guidelines and Law Commission observations highlight the need to balance access to justice with institutional limits.
• Strengthening Executive Accountability: Effective grievance redressal and regulatory enforcement can reduce judicial intervention.
  • The Second Administrative Reforms Commission recommended stronger accountability frameworks to prevent governance failures.
• Enhancing Transparency In Judicial Appointments: India needs a reformed NJAC while safeguarding judicial independence, that acknowledges the need for greater transparency within the collegium system.
  • Improving Institutional Dialogue And Legislative Response: Stronger Parliamentary Standing Committees, as suggested by the NCRWC, can address policy gaps early and reduce judicial law-making.

Conclusion

Judicial activism is both a democratic safeguard and a structural challenge. Its legitimacy depends on necessity, proportionality, and constitutional intent. A balanced approach, where courts intervene to protect rights and constitutional values while respecting the domain of elected institutions, is essential for sustaining democratic governance in India.