Judicial Overreach in India

The judiciary performs an active role to uphold constitutional values and ethics under the constitutional scheme. For confronting civic dilemmas, the judiciary applies its intellect and creativity to fill the hiatus between the positive and normative aspects of legislations. It cannot properly uphold the interest of the citizen, if it is enclosed with legal hindrances and consequently the judicial activism is emerged. But, the embracement with judicial overreach can menace the good governance.

2017

The Constitution of India has embodied a faith in the words of Abraham Lincon “that the Government of the people, for the people and by the people shall not perish upon this earth”. In consideration, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution, created three arms-Parliament, Executive and the Judiciary. In the Constitutional scheme parliament is not supreme. It is subject to a major limitation-that legislation does not violate any fundamental rights or constitutional values. In the context, the judiciary can strike down any law that is beyond Parliament’s legislative competence or is violative of the Constitution. In line, Article 142 of the Constitution had given a unique extraordinary power to our Supreme Court to do complete justice in any matter before it. As the umpire of the constitutional system and the legal process, the Supreme Court has to strive to relieve the tensions of a developing nation, to resolve the conflicts of a diverse and open society and to accommodate ad...

The International Journal of Human Rights, 2011

The responsibilities that a court carries in a country with a written constitution are very onerous-much more onerous than the responsibilities of a court without a written constitution. Because here, they do not just interpret the laws but also the provisions of the constitution, and, are thus entrusted with giving meaning to the cold letter of the constitution. The courts thus act as the supreme interpreter, protector and guardian of the supremacy of the constitution by keeping all authorities-legislative, executive, administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial-within legal bounds. The judiciary has the responsibility to scrutinise all governmental actions and it goes without saying that in a constitution having provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights of the people, the judiciary has the power as well as the obligation to protect the people's rights from any undue and unjustified encroachment.

IASET, 2022

The scope of judicial activism not a limited one. It is used to look in the matters and enforce what is beneficial for the society at large. The word "JUSTICE" has no end, this critically tells that justice is for all, 'rich or poor, strong or weak', even the king and queen were entrusted by karma to provide justice. The object behind the research paper is focused on the expansion of judicial activism in Indian democracy. The judicial activism in India had touched almost every aspect of life to provide positive justice. Many a times the right to judicial review and judicial activism act as a boon for the weaker section of society in protecting their rights by mere filling of a social interest litigation or a public interest litigation. Many a time, judicial intervention into the matter of executive and legislature has provided society with the upper hand in getting justice. Judicial system is a means of providing 'JUSTICE 'to all, and also to take all relevant and possible steps to protect the interest of JUSTICE. Judicial activism legal framework in Indian constitution integration towards fundamental rights.

Bihar Journal of Public Administration, UGC CARE, ISSN 0974-2735, 2022

It is crucial that all three branches of government work in unison if the country is to advance. But the situation today is worrying. The legislature and the executive either struggle to carry out their responsibilities with the utmost earnestness or try to dodge them. Therefore, the judiciary, the third organ, is the only one left to use judicial activism to address the complaints of the public. There has been activist approach by the judiciary especially for the disadvantaged or downtrodden sections of the society. It has delivered justice to the people keeping in its mind the limitations mentioned in our Indian Constitution. On the other hand, the judges may have crossed the line and forgotten what was acceptable. According to Montesquieu's "separation of powers" philosophy, there should be no crossing of boundaries. However, the judicial inventiveness that hasn't been focused on and used by the other machinery is what the public see and view as the judiciary overstepping the other organs.

BOUNDARIES AND CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN INDIA: A CRITICAL LEGAL ANALYSIS , 2023

This research paper aims to analyse the concept of judicial activism in India comprehensively. It explores the evolution of judicial activism, its changing perspectives, and its implications for the Indian legal system. Judicial activism is characterised by judicial decisions that go beyond the mere interpretation of laws to shape public policy, and it has been a prominent feature of Indian jurisprudence. However, the boundaries of judicial activism have often been debated and critiqued. This paper critically analyses the evolution of judicial activism in India, its impact on the separation of powers, and its role in shaping the socio-political landscape. Additionally, the research evaluates the changing perspectives of the judiciary and society regarding judicial activism and its implications for the Indian legal system.

With the framing of the Constitution of India, the three wings of effective governance came into being, namely the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The Constitution provides for separation of powers and hence demarcates the powers and areas of all these three machineries. However sometimes with the failure of the legislature and the executive, the separation of power remains a theory only in the text book and the third wing of governance, the judiciary assumes powers unprecedented for under the name and guise of judicial review, which is a very basic feature of the Constitution of India. The Indian judiciary has taken upon itself the task of ensuring maximum freedom to the masses and in the process, to galvanize the executive and the legislature to work for public good. However, this changing stance of the judiciary from moderate to active role has invited wrath from some sections of the society, criticism from some others and support and cheers from still other sections. Some political scholars feel that the judiciary is usurping powers in the name of public interest (Rajinder Sacher, 1999), while according to others, judicial activism and interference is actually preventing the executive from going astray

Judicial review lies at the heart of this vigilance as the first line of defense of democracy. It has always existed albeit in a rudimentary form even in the Greek city-states (‘polis’). The authority of the US Supreme Court as the sole interpreter of the US Constitution has always remained unchallenged. The term ‘judicial activism’ (in the American context) consequently conjures up images of notoriously arrogant judges wielding vast discretionary powers of judicial interpretation. It would indeed be a grave fallacy, however, to hastily conclude that the Indian Supreme Court must be regarded with a similar sense of foreboding. Judicial activism was unheard of in India until the late 1970s. During the post-independence era till the emergency, the Bench was better known for exercising judicial restraint if anything. The determination of most judges to see India through the initial teething period suppressed successfully any skepticism or inhibitions that they may have had about the efficacy of various executive and legislative, policies and laws adopted over the three decades that followed Independence. The Emergency was perhaps the turning point in the history of judicial review in India.