Judicial Review and Judicial Activism: Pillars of Constitutional Governance
In the realm of competitive exams, particularly for UPSC Polity and Constitution, understanding the nuances of Judicial Review and Judicial Activism is paramount. These concepts are central to the functioning of India's democratic framework, defining the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights.
Judicial Review: The Guardian of the Constitution
Judicial Review is the power of the courts to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of government and determine whether such actions are consistent with the Constitution. If any action is found to be inconsistent, the court can declare it void. This power ensures that all branches of government operate within the constitutional boundaries.
Judicial Review is the judiciary's power to invalidate laws or executive actions that violate the Constitution.
This power acts as a check on the other branches of government, ensuring constitutional supremacy. It is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution but is implied through various articles and established through landmark Supreme Court judgments.
The concept of Judicial Review in India is largely derived from the American system. While the Constitution does not use the term 'judicial review', Article 13 declares that all laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights shall be void. Articles 32 and 226 empower the High Courts and the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which inherently involves the power to review legislative and executive actions. The landmark case of <b>Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)</b> established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', which further solidified the scope of judicial review, stating that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters its basic structure.
To ensure that laws and executive actions are consistent with the Constitution and to declare any unconstitutional actions void.
Judicial Activism: Proactive Intervention
Judicial Activism refers to the willingness of the judiciary to go beyond its traditional role of interpreting laws and actively intervene in matters of governance to protect citizens' rights and promote social justice. It often involves the judiciary taking suo motu cognizance of issues and issuing directives to the executive and legislature.
Judicial Activism is when the judiciary takes a more proactive role in addressing societal issues and protecting rights.
This approach allows the judiciary to fill gaps where the executive or legislature may be slow to act, often through Public Interest Litigation (PIL). However, it also raises concerns about judicial overreach.
Judicial activism is often seen as a response to the inaction or inefficiency of the other branches of government. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been a significant vehicle for judicial activism in India. Through PIL, courts can take up issues affecting the public at large, even if the affected individuals cannot approach the court themselves. Notable examples include environmental protection cases, rights of prisoners, and issues related to public amenities. While it has been instrumental in advancing social justice, critics argue that it can blur the lines of separation of powers and lead to judicial overreach, encroaching upon the domain of the executive and legislature.
| Feature | Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|---|
| Core Function | Interpreting and upholding the Constitution | Proactive intervention for social justice and rights protection |
| Nature of Action | Reactive (examines existing laws/actions) | Proactive (initiates action or directs action) |
| Primary Tool | Constitutional interpretation, writ jurisdiction | Public Interest Litigation (PIL), suo motu cognizance |
| Potential Concern | Judicial overreach (less common) | Judicial overreach, blurring separation of powers |
Think of Judicial Review as the Constitution's 'quality control' and Judicial Activism as the judiciary's 'social worker' role.
Key Cases and Their Impact
Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding and application of both Judicial Review and Judicial Activism in India. Understanding these cases is crucial for exam preparation.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Loading diagram...
Balancing Act: The Fine Line
The challenge lies in maintaining a balance. While judicial review is essential for constitutionalism, unchecked judicial activism can undermine the democratic process and the separation of powers. The judiciary must act as a guardian, not a ruler.
Learning Resources
Explains the concept of judicial review and its relevance in contemporary Indian politics.
Provides a detailed analysis of judicial activism, its evolution, and its impact on governance in India.
Official legal text outlining the powers and functions of the Supreme Court of India, which underpins judicial review.
The full text of the landmark judgment that established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', crucial for understanding judicial review's limits.
Details the mechanism of PIL, a key tool for judicial activism, and its significance in Indian law.
A comprehensive overview of judicial review as a legal concept globally, with specific references to India.
Explains the concept of judicial activism, its historical context, and debates surrounding it.
A video explaining the structure and role of the Indian judiciary, including its powers of review and activism.
A focused video tutorial on judicial review and activism specifically for competitive exam preparation.
Focuses on Article 13 of the Constitution, which is foundational to the concept of judicial review in India.