Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach (GS2)

Judicial Activism

Reason:

Constitutional Interpretation: Courts interpret the constitution to uphold the rights and freedoms of citizens.

Executive and Legislative Failure: When the executive and legislature fail to act or infringe on rights, the judiciary steps in.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Evolved to address issues affecting the public at large, allowing any citizen to approach the court.

Implications:

Protection of Rights: Ensures protection and enforcement of fundamental rights.

Accountability: Keeps a check on the actions of the executive and legislature.

Legal Reforms: Promotes legal reforms and progressive changes in society.

Examples:

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace were laid down.

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Established the concept of PIL in India.

(also can use Golaknath case, Migrant worker issue in covid19 pandemic,Bhopal gas tragedy etc)

(Articles- 13, 32,226,141,142)

Judicial Overreach

Reason:

Exceeding Boundaries: When judiciary steps into the domain of the legislature or executive.

Policy Decisions: Involvement in policy-making which is typically the realm of the legislative and executive branches.

Implications:

Separation of Powers: Undermines the principle of separation of powers.

Governance Issues: Can lead to governance issues and inefficiency as judiciary lacks expertise in policy-making.

Democratic Process: May undermine the democratic process by bypassing elected representatives.

Examples:

Supreme Court’s National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Judgement (2015): Struck down the NJAC Act, leading to debates on judicial overreach.

Banning of Liquor Shops on Highways (2016): The SC order led to significant economic implications and raised questions of judicial overreach.

Way Forward

Clear Boundaries: Defining the boundaries between judicial activism and overreach.

Strengthening Institutions: Ensuring that executive and legislative bodies perform their duties effectively to minimise judicial intervention.

Judicial Restraint: Courts should practice self-restraint and respect the roles of the other branches of government.

Public Awareness: Increasing public awareness and education on the roles and limits of the judiciary.

Conclusion

Judicial activism and overreach represent a delicate balance in upholding constitutional values and ensuring governance without overstepping boundaries. The judiciary must act as a guardian of the constitution while respecting the domains of the legislature and executive. A robust framework and vigilant public discourse can help maintain this balance.