Judicial Review and Judicial Activism
Political Science
- Language
Index
Introduction
Judicial review and judicial activism are two essential aspects of the Indian legal system that play a crucial role in upholding the principles of justice and ensuring the protection of citizens' rights.
At its core, judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to review and invalidate legislative or executive actions that are deemed unconstitutional. This power allows the judiciary to serve as a check on the other branches of government, ensuring that their actions conform to the provisions of the Constitution.
Judicial Review in India
In India, judicial review is an inherent part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, as the custodian of the Constitution, has the authority to strike down laws or governmental actions that violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. This power was established through landmark cases such as Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and is crucial in maintaining a balance of power among the three branches of government.
Importance of Judicial Review
The importance of judicial review cannot be overstated. It acts as a safeguard against potential abuses of power by the legislature and executive. By ensuring the constitutionality of laws and governmental actions, judicial review protects the rights and liberties of individuals and promotes the rule of law.
Role of the Judiciary
The judiciary in India plays a pivotal role in upholding the principles of judicial review. The courts carefully examine the constitutionality of laws, policies, and executive actions brought before them. Through this process, the judiciary acts as the final arbiter and protector of the Constitution, preserving the democratic fabric of the nation.
Challenges to Judicial Review
While judicial review is a critical aspect of the Indian legal system, it also faces certain challenges. One such challenge is the issue of judicial backlog, which hampers the timely delivery of justice. Additionally, there are debates about the extent of judicial intervention in policy matters and the potential for judicial overreach.
Judicial Activism Defined
Moving beyond judicial review, judicial activism refers to instances where the judiciary proactively interprets the law and takes an active role in shaping public policy. It involves the courts going beyond their traditional role of mere interpretation and actively participating in addressing social issues.
Judicial Activism in India
India has witnessed several instances of judicial activism that have had a profound impact on society. The Supreme Court has addressed issues such as environmental protection, gender equality, and corruption through public interest litigations and proactive judicial interventions. Landmark cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) and the Right to Information (RTI) Act judgment are notable examples of judicial activism in India.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Review
While judicial activism and judicial review are closely related, they are distinct concepts. Judicial review focuses on the constitutionality of laws, while judicial activism goes beyond that by actively shaping policy and addressing social issues. Judicial activism is characterized by judges taking a proactive stance and often making decisions that lead to societal reforms.
Benefits of Judicial Activism
One of the key benefits of judicial activism is its ability to fill gaps left by the legislative and executive branches. In situations where the legislature has been ineffective or has failed to address pressing issues, judicial activism can provide relief to the affected parties. It ensures that justice is not delayed or denied, promoting the welfare of society as a whole.
Criticisms of Judicial Activism
Despite its merits, judicial activism has faced criticism as well. Some argue that it encroaches upon the domain of the legislature and undermines the principle of separation of powers. There are concerns about judges overstepping their boundaries and making decisions based on personal biases rather than legal principles.
Balancing Judicial Review and Activism
Striking a balance between judicial review and judicial activism is crucial for a well-functioning legal system. While judicial review ensures the constitutionality of laws, judicial activism fills gaps in legislation and addresses societal issues. A judicious approach that respects the separation of powers while upholding justice is essential.
Case Studies
Several notable cases have shaped the discourse around judicial review and activism in India. The Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) case, which decriminalized homosexuality, and the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) case, which recognized transgender rights, highlight the impact of judicial intervention in India.
Conclusion :
Judicial review and judicial activism are vital components of the Indian legal system. They provide a means for citizens to seek redress, ensure the protection of fundamental rights, and hold the government accountable. By upholding the principles of justice, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in fostering a society based on equality, fairness, and the rule of law.
Share
Other Topics
Unit - IV