Explain the concept of Judicial Activism and evaluate its impact on the relationship of Executive and Judiciary in India.

by

Points to Remember:

  • Definition and scope of Judicial Activism.
  • Historical context of Judicial Activism in India.
  • Positive and negative impacts on the Executive-Judiciary relationship.
  • Case studies illustrating Judicial Activism’s influence.
  • Constitutional implications and safeguards.
  • Suggestions for a balanced approach.

Introduction:

Judicial activism refers to the judiciary’s willingness to go beyond its traditional role of interpreting laws and actively shaping public policy. It involves judges taking a more proactive role in addressing societal issues, often by striking down legislation or executive actions deemed unconstitutional or unjust. While the concept is not explicitly defined, its presence is evident in judicial decisions that significantly impact the balance of power between the executive and judiciary. In India, the rise of Judicial Activism has been a subject of considerable debate, particularly concerning its impact on the delicate relationship between the two branches of government. The Indian Constitution, while establishing an independent judiciary, also envisions a system of checks and balances, making the interaction between the executive and judiciary a crucial aspect of governance.

Body:

1. Historical Context of Judicial Activism in India:

Initially, the Indian judiciary adopted a more restrained approach. However, post-emergency (1975-77), there was a shift towards a more assertive role, with courts increasingly intervening in matters of public policy. Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) (establishing the “basic structure” doctrine) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) (expanding the scope of fundamental rights) laid the groundwork for increased judicial activism.

2. Positive Impacts on the Executive-Judiciary Relationship:

  • Enhanced Accountability: Judicial activism holds the executive branch accountable for its actions, ensuring adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution. It prevents arbitrary exercise of power and protects citizens’ rights.
  • Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary, through its active intervention, safeguards fundamental rights, even against legislative or executive encroachment. This is crucial in a diverse and complex society like India.
  • Promoting Good Governance: Judicial activism has led to improvements in various sectors, including environmental protection, public health, and social justice, by compelling the executive to implement policies and reforms. Examples include cases related to environmental clearances and the right to education.
  • Strengthening Democracy: By acting as a check on executive power, the judiciary strengthens democratic institutions and prevents the concentration of power in one branch of government.

3. Negative Impacts on the Executive-Judiciary Relationship:

  • Overreach of Judicial Power: Critics argue that judicial activism leads to judicial overreach, encroaching upon the domain of the legislature and executive, which are democratically elected bodies.
  • Judicial Delays: The increased workload on the judiciary due to its active intervention can lead to significant delays in the judicial process, impacting the efficiency of the entire system.
  • Strained Executive-Judiciary Relations: Frequent judicial interventions can create friction between the executive and judiciary, potentially hindering effective governance and policy implementation.
  • Lack of Expertise: The judiciary may lack the necessary expertise to effectively address complex policy issues, leading to potentially flawed or impractical decisions.

4. Case Studies:

  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court, in the absence of specific legislation, laid down guidelines to combat sexual harassment at the workplace, demonstrating proactive judicial intervention.
  • Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000): The Court’s intervention in the Narmada dam project highlighted the judiciary’s role in environmental protection, but also sparked debate about its role in development projects.

Conclusion:

Judicial activism in India has been a double-edged sword. While it has played a crucial role in protecting fundamental rights, promoting good governance, and enhancing executive accountability, it has also raised concerns about judicial overreach and potential strain on the executive-judiciary relationship. A balanced approach is crucial. The judiciary must continue to uphold its constitutional role as a guardian of fundamental rights and the rule of law, but it should also be mindful of its limitations and avoid encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and executive. Mechanisms for greater transparency and accountability within the judiciary itself are also necessary. Strengthening parliamentary oversight and fostering a culture of constructive dialogue between the executive and judiciary are essential for maintaining a healthy balance of power and ensuring effective governance while upholding constitutional values and promoting sustainable development. The ultimate goal should be a system where all branches of government work collaboratively to serve the best interests of the nation.

UPPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for UPPCS Prelims and UPPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by UPPCS Notes are as follows:- For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––