Judicial Activism

• To define judicial activism, it implies the court’s authority to exercise its jurisdiction when circumstances necessitate it or whenever it is required
• The judges are given the ability to employ their powers in the event of an injustice being committed when other governing authorities are unable to do so and redress it
• Judicial activism has flourished in India through Public Interest Litigation PIL or Social Action Litigation SAL

Social Action Litigation (SAL) or Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

• In the normal course of law:

  • An individual can approach the courts only if he/she has been personally aggrieved i.e., a person whose rights have been violated, or who is involved in a dispute

• Underwent a change around 1979:

  • It was set as a trend in Court in 1979 that cases are not filed by victims but by others on their behalf
  • These cases were considered an issue of public interest
  • Many cases like it were called public interest litigation.  It led to many more such cases involving public interests
• Judicial activism became a popular description of judiciary: As Judiciary began considering many cases merely based on newspaper reports and postal complaints received by the court
• Expanded the idea of rights: Courts felt that individuals as parts of the society must have the right to seek justice wherever rights like clean air, decent living, etc. were violated
• Takes into consideration the rights of the underprivileged: The judiciary allows public-spirited citizens, social organisations and lawyers to file petitions on behalf of the deprived

Methods of judicial activism:

• In India, several methods of judicial activism are used. They are as follows:

1. Review by the courts (power of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and to declare any such law or order of the legislature and executive void, if it finds them in conflict with the Constitution)
2. PIL (The individual submitting the petition must have no personal interest in the dispute; the court accepts this petition only if there is a substantial public interest involved; the injured party does not file the petition)
3. Interpretation of the Constitution
4. Access to international statutes for the protection of constitutional rights
5. The upper courts have supervisory authority over the lesser courts

Impact in the political system by Judicial activism: 

• Democratized the Judicial system: It gives access to courts to not just individuals but also to groups
• It has forced executive accountability
• Attempted to make the electoral system free and fair: Like the court asked candidates contesting elections to file affidavits indicating their assets and income so that the people could elect their representatives based on accurate knowledge 

The Importance of Judicial Activism:

• When the government and legislature fail to safeguard people’ rights and execute constitutional principles, it is an effective instrument
• When all other avenues of protection have been exhausted, citizens have only the court to rely on to defend their rights. The Indian judiciary has long been regarded as the custodian and guardian of the Indian Constitution
• The transition from locus standi to public interest litigation, according to experts, made the judicial process more participative and democratic
• Judicial activism greatly challenges the notion that the court is only a spectator

Disadvantages of surplus PIL’s and the idea of a proactive judiciary:

• It has overburdened the courts. 
• Disturbed the balance of power among organs of government:
  • The court has been involved in resolving questions that belong to the executive such as reducing air or sound pollution or investigating cases of corruption etc
  • May create strains on democratic principle: As the democratic government is based on each organ of government respecting the powers and jurisdiction of the others

Criticism of Judicial Activism:

Judicial activism has also been criticised on various occasions. The judiciary often combines personal prejudice and views with the law in the guise of judicial activism. Another argument is that judicial activism throws the notion of separation of powers between the three branches of government to the wind. In the pretext of activity, the court often intervenes in administrative domains and engages in judicial adventurism/overreach.

Conclusion

We have looked into judicial activism assessing its importance and drawbacks. We can hence say that Judicial activism is a judicial ideology that holds that courts may and should go beyond the letter of the law in order to examine the larger social consequences of their judgements. Judicial activism is the use of judicial review to invalidate government actions. In general, the term is used to indicate negative applications of such authority, although there is no consensus on which cases are unfavourable.