Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism refers to the situation when the judiciary (especially the High Courts and the Supreme Court) intervenes in or delivers judgments on matters that ordinarily fall within the domain of the executive or the legislature — and such intervention is undertaken in the interest of the public or for the protection of the Constitution.

Key Features:

• It reflects the judiciary’s proactive role.
• Courts deliver decisions on policies or issues that are generally considered by the Parliament or the government.
• It aims to protect the fundamental rights of common citizens.
• It often occurs through the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Examples of Judicial Activism (From a UPSC Perspective):

Types of Judicial Activism:

1. Constitutional Activism – The judiciary’s creative role in interpreting the Constitution.
2. Political Activism – When courts intervene in political matters.
3. Social Activism – When courts deliver judgments on issues of social justice, environment, education, etc.

Advantages of Judicial Activism:

• Safeguards the rights of ordinary citizens.
• Balances the inaction of the executive and legislature.
• Promotes transparency and accountability.
• Acts as a means of justice for weaker sections.

Criticisms of Judicial Activism:

• Violation of the Separation of Powers principle.
• Tendency of the judiciary to engage in policy-making.
• Risk of Judicial Overreach.
• Potential disruption of the democratic framework.

Potential UPSC Mains Question:

Question:
"Evaluate the role of judicial activism in Indian democracy. Does it strengthen democracy or create an imbalance?"

Judicial Review

Judicial Review is the process through which the judiciary (especially the High Courts and the Supreme Court) examines whether a law enacted by the legislature or an action taken by the executive is in conformity with the Constitution.
If any law or action is found to be contrary to the Constitution, the court can declare it unconstitutional and invalidate it.

Constitutional Basis:

• Article 13 – Any law that violates fundamental rights shall be void.
• Articles 32 and 226 – Power to issue writs for the protection of fundamental rights.
• Articles 131, 136, 143, 145 – Provisions related to various judicial powers.

Key Features of Judicial Review:

• It ensures the supremacy of the Constitution.
• It protects democracy and safeguards citizens' rights.
• In India, the power of judicial review is derived from the Constitution, not self-assumed by the judiciary.

Important Cases:

Advantages of Judicial Review:

• Maintains the supremacy of the Constitution.
• Limits the powers of the executive and the legislature.
• Protects justice and citizens' rights.
• Ensures constitutional balance within democracy.

Criticisms:

• Sometimes it may lead to Judicial Overreach.
• Involves intervention by unelected judges in the decisions of elected representatives.
• Raises concerns about Parliamentary sovereignty.

Potential UPSC Mains Question:

Question:
"Critically examine the concept of Judicial Review in the Indian Constitution. Does it limit the powers of the legislature or protect the Constitution?"

EWS Reservation Verdict (2022) and Article 142

• In 2019, through the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, the Central Government provided 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
• This reservation was intended for the economically poor among the General Category and was implemented in educational institutions and government jobs.
• It excluded Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), benefiting only the economically weaker individuals from the General Category.

Challenge in the Supreme Court:

• Multiple petitions challenged the EWS reservation, arguing that it violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution:
  • It allegedly violated the Right to Equality (Article 14),
  • Fundamental Rights,
  • And the 50% ceiling limit on reservations established in the Indra Sawhney case.

Supreme Court Verdict (November 2022):

• A 5-judge Constitution Bench delivered the judgment by a 3:2 majority:
  • The 103rd Amendment was declared valid.
  • EWS reservation does not violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
  • It does not infringe the Right to Equality but aids economically backward sections.

Use of Article 142:

• In certain specific situations, where the implementation of EWS reservation could disadvantage some students/candidates, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to issue exceptional orders:
  • Protecting the rights of previously selected candidates,
  • Providing interim relief to ensure justice.

Through Article 142, the Supreme Court enforced the concept of "complete justice" — ensuring that no individual's rights or benefits were taken away due to policy changes.

UPSC Mains Question:

Question:
"Evaluate the 2022 Supreme Court judgment on EWS reservation in the context of the Basic Structure doctrine. Does the use of Article 142 in this judgment indicate judicial activism?"

"Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint"

Comparative Study

Conclusion:

• Judicial activism becomes necessary when the executive and legislature fail in their duties.
• However, excessive intervention may disrupt the democratic balance.
• On the other hand, judicial restraint helps maintain the balance of power within democracy, but excessive restraint may hinder justice in matters of public interest.

Ideal Situation:
Maintaining a balance between activism and restraint is essential for a healthy democracy.

Question:

"Critically evaluate the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment on EWS reservation in light of the Basic Structure Doctrine. Does the use of Article 142 in this context indicate judicial activism?"

Introduction:

On 7th November 2022, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which provided a 10% reservation in educational institutions and public employment for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
This judgment is significant because it recognized, for the first time, reservation solely based on economic criteria.
The question demands an evaluation of this decision with reference to the Basic Structure Doctrine and the use of Article 142.

Main Body:

1. Supreme Court’s 2022 Judgment and the 103rd Amendment:

• Under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment:
  • Articles 15 and 16 were amended to allow reservation on economic grounds.
  • The reservation is specifically for economically weaker citizens from the general category.
  • Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) are excluded from this reservation.
• Key Points of the Supreme Court Verdict:
  • Delivered by a 5-judge Constitution Bench with a 3:2 majority.
  • Majority upheld the amendment as constitutional.
  • Justices Maheshwari, Trivedi, and Pardiwala supported it;
  • Justices Bhatt and Lalit dissented.

2. Evaluation in the Context of the Basic Structure Doctrine:

Basic Structure Doctrine:

• Propounded in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), it states that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its basic structure.

Criticism:

• Some argued that economic reservation:
  • Violates the Right to Equality (Article 14).
  • Weakens the principle of social justice, as traditionally, reservations were based on social and educational backwardness, not purely economic criteria.

Support:

• The majority held that:
  • The basic structure is not limited to social and educational backwardness alone.
  • Economic deprivation is also intrinsically linked to the principle of equal opportunity.
  • Therefore, the amendment did not destroy the basic structure but rather expanded and evolved it.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Bhatt):

• Argued that excluding SC/ST/OBC from EWS reservation violates equality and damages the basic structure.

3. Article 142 and Judicial Activism:

Article 142:

• Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any case.

Was Article 142 formally used in this decision?

• No direct or formal invocation of Article 142 was made in this particular verdict.
• The judgment was mainly based on constitutional interpretation rather than extraordinary relief measures under Article 142.

Was this Judicial Activism?

• Partially, yes.
  • The Court broadened the constitutional understanding of reservation to include economic criteria.
  • This reflects a liberal and evolutionary interpretation of social justice.
  • It indicates elements of judicial activism, especially in adapting constitutional principles to contemporary socio-economic realities.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision demonstrates that the Indian Constitution is a living document, capable of evolving with changing socio-economic contexts.
While the judgment raised critical debates (such as the tension between social and economic backwardness), it expanded constitutional interpretation without violating the basic structure.
Although Article 142 was not directly employed, the Court’s approach reflects balanced judicial activism — ensuring constitutional fidelity while addressing contemporary needs.

Question:

"Discuss the concept of Judicial Review in the Indian Constitution. Does it limit the power of the Legislature or protect the Constitution?"

Introduction:

Judicial Review is a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution that empowers the judiciary to review the constitutional validity of legislative and executive actions.
This doctrine safeguards the soul of Indian democracy and ensures adherence to the principle of Supremacy of the Constitution.
➔ Article 13 of the Constitution provides the clear foundation for Judicial Review.

Main Body:

1. Concept of Judicial Review in the Indian Constitution:

• Article 13(2):
  The State shall not make any law that violates Fundamental Rights; any such law shall be void.
• Articles 32 and 226:
  Empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• Scope of Judicial Review:
  • Review of legislative actions.
  • Review of executive decisions.
  • Review of constitutional amendments (if they violate the Basic Structure Doctrine).
• Source:
  The concept of Judicial Review was borrowed from the USA but has been explicitly incorporated into the Indian Constitution.

2. Judicial Review: Protector of the Constitution or a Limit on the Legislature?

(A) A Tool for Protecting the Constitution:

• Ensuring Supremacy of the Constitution:
  The judiciary ensures that no law contravenes constitutional provisions.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights:
  If any law infringes upon citizens’ fundamental rights, the court can declare it unconstitutional.
  Example: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — the Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine.
• Safeguarding Democratic Values:
  Ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in laws and policies.
• Checking Executive Misuse:
  The judiciary prevents arbitrariness and unfairness in governmental decisions.

(B) A Limited Check on the Legislature’s Power:

• Judicial Review prevents the legislature from acting arbitrarily but operates only when a citizen raises a complaint of rights violation.
• It does not interfere with the independent functioning of the legislature but reviews its actions for constitutional compliance.

3. Key Case Examples:

4. Types of Judicial Review:

Conclusion:

Judicial Review is the indispensable guardian of Indian democracy.
It does not unduly restrict the legislature’s power; instead, it safeguards the supremacy of the Constitution, protects citizens' rights, and upholds the sanctity of democratic institutions.
Thus, Judicial Review acts as the Guardian of Democracy, not as an unjust constraint on the legislature.
As aptly said, "Where there is no judicial review, there is no Constitution."

Question:

"Evaluate the role of Judicial Activism in Indian democracy. Does it strengthen or destabilize democracy?"

Introduction:

Judicial Activism refers to the judiciary adopting a relatively proactive role while interpreting the Constitution, laws, and citizens' rights.
It occurs when courts protect democratic principles by influencing policymaking, reviewing legislative actions, and checking executive decisions.
In Indian democracy, Judicial Activism has often played a leading role in protecting public interest, though it has also faced criticisms.

Main Body:

1. Role of Judicial Activism in Indian Democracy:

✅ (i) Protection of Citizens' Rights:

• Through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), courts have safeguarded the rights of marginalized sections.
• Example: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) — Right to free legal aid and speedy trial was recognized.

✅ (ii) Ensuring Accountability of the Executive and Legislature:

• Judicial Activism has enhanced transparency and accountability by challenging the validity of government decisions.
• Example: Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) — Political interference in CBI investigations was curbed (ordering "CBI Reforms").

✅ (iii) Contribution to Environmental Protection:

• Courts have recognized important environmental principles such as "Sustainable Development" and "Environmental Protection in Public Interest."
• Example: MC Mehta Cases — Ganga pollution, Delhi air pollution, industrial pollution.

✅ (iv) Promotion of Democratic Values:

• From protecting voters' rights to initiating electoral reforms, the judiciary has deepened democracy.
• Example: PUCL v. Union of India (2003) — Mandatory disclosure of criminal records of candidates.

✅ (v) Promotion of Social Justice:

• Courts have issued significant directions on women’s rights, child labor, and bonded labor elimination.
• Example: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) — Vishaka Guidelines were laid down to protect against sexual harassment at workplaces.

2. Judicial Activism: Strengthening or Destabilizing Democracy?

(A) As a Strengthener of Democracy:

• Access to Justice for the Common People:
  When the legislature and executive fail, the judiciary protects citizens' rights.
• Moral Direction to Governance:
  Promoting justice and ethical governance in public administration.
• Protection of Constitutional Values:
  Upholding the ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice.

(B) Potential Threats to Democratic Balance:

• Judicial Overreach:
  Sometimes courts excessively interfere in policymaking or administrative functions.
• Erosion of Democratic Accountability:
  Since the judiciary is not directly elected by the people, excessive intervention can undermine democratic responsibility.
• Violation of Separation of Powers:
  Balance among the executive, legislature, and judiciary can be disturbed.
  Example:
  • Supreme Court’s intervention in BCCI reforms (Lodha Committee Recommendations) was criticized by many experts as Judicial Overreach, as it altered the internal structure of the cricket board.

3. Balanced Analysis:

Conclusion:

Judicial Activism has been a powerful instrument in safeguarding constitutional values in Indian democracy, especially when other branches have failed.
However, Judicial Restraint is equally crucial to maintaining the constitutional separation of powers between the judiciary, legislature, and executive.
➔ Thus, Judicial Activism strengthens democracy if it operates within dignity and constitutional boundaries.

"Judicial activism is not an unguided missile; it must operate within the constitutional compass."

Topic Related Videos ⬇️