Approach / Explaination / Answer
Approach
- Define Judicial Activism and its role in governance.
- Analyze both positive and negative impacts on governance with examples.
- Examine whether it blurs the separation of powers with arguments for and against.
- Conclude with a balanced view on judicial activism and constitutional harmony.
|
Introduction
Judicial Activism refers to proactive judicial interventions where courts interpret laws expansively to uphold constitutional values, rights, and governance principles. It has played a crucial role in India by addressing executive failures, policy gaps, and protecting fundamental rights. However, concerns arise over whether it violates the separation of powers, a fundamental doctrine enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Body
Judicial Activism and its Impact on Governance:
- Strengthens democracy by ensuring accountability: Judicial activism compels executive and legislative bodies to perform their constitutional duties, ensuring good governance.
- Example: In Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace, filling a legislative void.
- Upholds fundamental rights and social justice: It safeguards citizen rights, particularly for marginalized groups, by directing policy changes when other organs fail.
- Example: The Right to Food case (PUCL v. Union of India, 2001) led to strengthening the Public Distribution System (PDS) and mid-day meal schemes.
- Environmental governance and sustainable development: Courts have taken proactive steps in environmental protection, enforcing policies where the executive has been inadequate.
- Example: The Taj Trapezium Case (MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1996) resulted in relocating polluting industries near the Taj Mahal.
- Legalizing new rights and expanding policy frameworks: Judicial activism has been instrumental in recognizing progressive rights in the absence of specific laws.
- Example: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalized Section 377, ensuring LGBTQ+ rights.
Judicial Activism Blurring Separation of Powers
- Judicial encroachment into executive and legislative domains: Courts, through judicial activism, sometimes issue directives that fall within policy-making, traditionally the legislature’s domain.
- Example: In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court clarified the powers of the Delhi government, but some argued it interfered in executive matters.
- Violation of the separation of powers doctrine: Article 50 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) emphasizes the independence of the judiciary but judicial activism may create an imbalance.
- Example: In Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016), the court mandated playing the national anthem in cinemas, which was later modified, raising concerns over judicial overreach.
- Judicial overreach versus legitimate activism: While activism upholds rights, judicial overreach occurs when courts directly legislate or administer policies.
- Example: The Supreme Court’s ban on liquor sales along highways (2016) was seen as excessive interference in policy-making and state revenue matters.
- Need for institutional checks and balances: Excessive judicial intervention can undermine executive efficiency and legislative intent, weakening democratic accountability.
- Example: In Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), the court laid down guidelines on passive euthanasia, which ideally should have been a legislative prerogative.
Conclusion
Judicial activism has played a transformative role in governance by enforcing constitutional rights and executive accountability. However, excessive intervention risks disturbing the delicate balance of powers. A well-defined approach to self-restraint and judicial discipline is essential to ensure harmonious governance while respecting institutional boundaries.