Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach in India

The Indian judicial system, consisting of judicial activism, judicial review, and judicial overreach, is based on a constructive leadership system. In this system, the Indian Constitution is the supreme legal document, the apex court in India’s judicial branch, high courts at the state level; and district courts at the lowest level possible for each district or a combination of a few municipalities in each state, depending on the population.

What Is Judicial Review?

Although the legislature has the authority to enact legislation, this authority is not complete. The process through which the judiciary examines the legality of laws established by the authority is known as judicial review.

The three types of judicial review are derived from the Indian Constitution (Article 13) and are as follows:

1) Reviews of Legislative Action

2) Reviews of Judicial Decisions

3) Reviews of Administrative Actions 

Judicial Activism in the Courtroom

Judicial activism began in the United States in 1947, and it was first seen in India in 1973 when the Allahabad High Court refused former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s candidacy. The judiciary takes active participation in enforcing social justice through judicial activism. Judicial activism occurs when the Parliament respects citizens’ rights while also preserving the country’s constitutional and legal systems.

Judicial Review: 

The judiciary’s power to conclude the legality of legislation or an order is judicial review. Judicial activism uses judicial power to articulate and enforce what is beneficial to society and people in general.

Judicial activism refers to the judiciary’s more active role in enforcing social justice. When we talk about judicial activism, we refer to the devised mechanisms that aren’t backed by the law.

An Example of Judicial Activism

1. Golak Nath Case: In this case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that India’s Fundamental Rights cannot be limited or modified. However, the Indian Constitution has been revised again in the 25th Amendment, adding Article 31C to Part III.

Article 31 C’s provisions

• If a law is passed to affect DPSPs under Article 39 (c) and (b), and the law breaches Article 19, Article 14, and Article 31, the law should not be considered unauthorised and void only on this basis.
• Any law containing the declaration in Article 39 (c) and (b) that it will affect DPSPs will not be challenged in a court of law.

2. In the case of Kesavanada Bharati, the court ruled that Parliament can change any element of the Constitution but not its fundamental structure. Parliament cannot take away the power of judicial judgment. The court found the second clause in Article 31C to be illegal and invalid but upheld the first clause. However, the Indian Parliament passed the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which broadened the scope of Article 31 C’s first provision to include any law enacted to execute in any of the DPSPs listed in IV Part of the Constitution, not just Article 39 (b) or Article 39 (c).

3.  Cricket Reforms: The Supreme Court is working hard to reorganise India’s Board for the Control of Cricket (BCCI). This is unexpected, given that the BCCI is a private organisation. The Supreme Court established the Mudgal Committee and the Lodha Panel to investigate the betting allegations and provide recommendations for reform. The Supreme Court fired BCCI officials for failing to follow the advice reforms.

What is Judicial Overreach?

When judicial activism crosses its limit into judicial adventurism, it is known as judicial overreach. When the court goes beyond its authority, it involves interfering with the functions of the legislative and executive arms of government.

It occurs when the judiciary tries to interfere with the efficient working of the government’s legislative or executive branches. It is uninvited in a democracy and violates the separation of powers premise.

The court of justice has defended judicial overreach by claiming that it only intervened in executive and legislative cases. The spirit of separation of powers is shattered by judicial overreach.

Examples of Judicial Overreach

The NJAC Bill and the 99th Constitutional Amendment are unconstitutional and void: The Supreme Court declared the NJAC and the 99th Amendment of the Constitution to be unauthorised and invalid. Furthermore, lawmakers and civil workers must have the final say in appointing justices to the Supreme Court, or the judiciary could become tangled up in a web of budget deficits.

Therefore, judicial activism refers to the judiciary’s role in upholding people’s legal and constitutional rights. Still, judicial activism exceeds its bounds when the judiciary’s mandate is broadened to include executive and legislative functions.

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach: Difference

• The reason why judicial activism and judicial overreach are different is razor-thin, and when activism crosses it and becomes judicial adventurism, it is referred to as judicial overreach.
• Individual perceptions influence whether the action is activism or excess.
• On the other hand, the court has always contended that they must intervene and issue orders owing to legislative and executive overreach.

Conclusion

Increasingly, the judiciary seems to be overstepping its boundaries, interfering with the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislature and the executive, resulting in an unhealthy instability in the country’s fragile institutional balance. We don’t have any situation where judicial rulings rule the country. A comprehensive and consolidated approach intended to improve judicial infrastructure and eliminate indiscipline has the opportunity to enhance the performance and pace of such a conventional court system.