Abstract:
Like its counterparts around the globe, the Indian court struggles with the long-lasting conflict between the two opposing judicial doctrines of judicial activism and judicial restraint. These ideas stand for the two pillars that support the structure of legal decision-making. In and of itself, judicial activity or restraint is neither an ideal nor an undesirable thing. One of the few new developments in India’s higher courts that has generated both enthusiasm and criticism is judicial activism. Courts are empowered to carry out judicial review, and they do it via the legal system. Despite the fact that a court is an institution, its members have the ability to influence its destiny since they bring a variety of perspectives, skills, and experiences to the table. Because of the appeal process, judges are more likely than kings to uphold the law. Regarding those whose decisions are immune to scrutiny and modification by an appeals court, what about the judicial summit? “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final.” None of us can ignore Jackson’s important comment. The flaws and illogical inclinations of human nature cannot be fully addressed by legislation, not even by constitutional law. A lot of the time, it’s unfinished.
This article explores the opposing ideas of judicial restraint and activity within the Indian judiciary’s institutional structure. It first offers a historical perspective on their development and importance before conducting a thorough analysis of their effects on the democratic legal system in India. This study aims to clarify the delicate balance that has to be maintained between judicial activity and restraint for the efficient operation of India’s legal and political institutions through a review of landmark cases and academic viewpoints.
INTRODUCTION:
The judiciary is essential in India because it look into the legality, application, and interpretation of laws. It is anticipated that the legal system would function to uphold the rights of every person while also administering justice that is impartial and just. It is difficult to administer justice in India because of the country’s dynamic socioeconomic and political environment, which leads to demands from the populace for a change in the judiciary’s duties and performance; this instance, judicial restraint and activity intersect. Judicial activism is a proactive approach to the law in which the court interprets and upholds constitutional principles, protects individual rights, and remedies perceived wrongs—often going beyond the customary limitations of the judicial position. On the other hand, judges should display restraint in deferring to the legislative and executive branches of government, highlighting their duties as policymakers and law enforcers. This approach is known as judicial restraint. The Indian legal system, democracy, the division of powers, and the credibility of the court itself are all significantly impacted by this tension between activity and restraint. Although the origins of these judicial ideologies in India may be found in the nation’s colonial past, they have undergone substantial evolution in their current forms throughout time[1].
WHAT IS JUDICIAL ACTIVISIM?
The idea behind judicial activism seems to be that judges ought to be conscious of the shifting social landscape in which they are functioning. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “legal activism is the readiness of judges to stray from precedent in favour of novel together with forward-thinking social initiatives”[2]. Judges have the constitutional right to intervene when the executive branch fails to act in the public interest. It was from this that the idea of judicial activism—which prioritizes social welfare—was developed. Sometimes judges interpret the law in a way that is more in line with the philosophy that was created at the time the Constitution was drafted than with the present one. Courtroom activists make decisions by putting their own will forward and reacting to legal issues within the framework of contemporary society. Those who embrace this theory contend that legal interpretations ought to be grounded in the circumstances and ideals of the moment since these things change throughout time with society. Decisions must thus take these changes into account. It is the role of the courts to redress injustice when other branches of government do not act in a way that meets expectations.
The concept of judicial activism has, however, come under scrutiny in recent years by the legal community since it veers outside the purview of other government agencies, which is contrary to the doctrine of the separation of powers. Consequently, it motivates the judges to depart from an inflexible interpretation of “Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India[3]” appears to be a prime instance of judicial activism, where the Supreme Court put ‘the strategy established by law’ into Article 21 and transformed the it ‘due process of law’ or ‘justice, equity and good conscience’. This approach undermines the sacredness of the Indian Constitution and conflicts with the original goal of its authors. In the “Second Judges Case”, often referred to as “Advocate on Record against Union of India[4]”, the court employed judicial activism by construing the terms “consultation” and “concurrence” in light of Article 124 of the Constitution.
WHAT IS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT?
The philosophy of interpretation employed by the Judiciary is referred to as “judicial restraint.” Stated differently, it’s the conviction that judges’ decisions and actions should be guided by legislative and constitutional mandates rather than their own inclinations. Judges should not overturn legislation unless and until they are unlawful. Advocates of judicial restraint contend that since courts do not have the power to create policy, they should instead depend on legislative intent, stare decisis, and strict application of judicial interpretation. This approach mandates that courts provide much regard in cases involving constitutional issues and only overturn their actions in cases where there has been a blatant violation of basic standards. To enable the implementation of new policies, courts should restrict judicial review.
Thus, the following matters need to be the judicial branch’s primary priorities:
- The intention of the makers of the Constitution
- Precedents
- Not indulge in policy-making”
The notion of judicial restraint served as the foundation for the momentous ruling rendered by the Supreme Court in the 1977 case of “State of Rajasthan v. Union of India[5]”. Additionally, the Supreme Court of India determined that there was a possibility that political inquiry was part of the case and that according to “S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[6]”, courts shouldn’t become involved in it. Justice Ahmadi contended that establishing rules that are judicially suitable was a challenging task and that if courts were to scrutinise political decisions, they would be participating in politics and examining people’s political comprehension. In “Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India[7]”, the Supreme Court of India ruled that even in cases when there is a blatant violation, the court should not instruct the Municipality on how to carry out its duties. The court can only reveal the authority what is permissible and impermissible under the law.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM vs. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT:
It is usual to refer to judicial activism vs. judicial restraint as the challenging and opposing views that both judicial activity and judicial restraint represented in the country at large. The goal of judicial activism and restraint is to stop constitutional entities and the stopping the government from misusing its power. Judicial activism is a way of thinking about making decisions that encourages judges to support contemporary ideals and situations while enabling judges to express their own personal opinions on matters of public policy, as opposed to adhering to the constitution. On the other hand, judges are urged to use judicial restraint in order to limit their authority and avoid rendering decisions that are illegal[8].
When the relevant federal and constitutional authorities do not fulfil their duties, judicial activism is the incorrect path of action; in these situations, judicial restraint is the appropriate route of action. Thus, the judicial officers can create policies that actively protect people’s legal rights, social rights, public rights, and more while ensuring political justice by using the activism approach. A delicate balance of power is maintained by the judiciary, executive, and legislative departments of government acting with restraint and energy. Judges and the court must review and alter existing legislation as needed when it comes to judicial activism.
This implies that a poor decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court or an Appellate Court. The active judicial system makes sure that all three branches—legislative, executive, and judicial—are held accountable, as opposed to granting the legislative branch undue power.
- Justice activism is a fresh perspective on the Constitution that upholds modern values and reality in resolving legal conflicts. However, judicial restraint limits judges’ power and keeps them from overturning laws, delegating this responsibility to them.
- If any person has already suffered injury as a result of the carelessness or incompetence of pertinent agencies, it appears that a judge has the authority to guarantee justice through judicial activism, according to legislators. Unlike judicial restraint, which does not, judgement protects all legislative and Congressional decisions that do not contravene the Constitution.
- Judicial activism protects citizens against political injustice, creates social programmes, upholds their rights, and ensures justice even in cases when the appropriate federal authorities neglect to carry out their duties.
- Judicial activism is different from judicial restraint in that judges who practise it have the power to reverse previous rulings or actions if they feel they were unfair.
- Judicial restraint avoids mediating disagreements between opposing parties that call for overturning a statute. If previous rulings, laws, or acts are shown to be incorrect, appellate courts have the authority to reverse them.
- Judicial activism takes into account the needs of society as a whole, whereas judicial restraint closely follows the rules and regulations of the constitution when rendering decisions.
- Judicial activism takes into account how society is changing, in contrast to judicial restraint, which is not required to take society as a whole into account.
- Until there is an obvious constitutional breach, judicial restraint does not affect legislative choices. Judicial activism, however, is not the same as this.
- Justice restraint carefully abides by the laws established by the constitution, whereas justice activism gives priority to social causes.
- Judicial activism pushes judges to use their own judgement and creativity in contrast to judicial restraint.
CONCLUSION:
In order to strike a balance between judicial activity and restraint, the Indian court must navigate a complicated and evolving legal framework. The Indian court must strike a balance between judicial activity and moderation in a complicated and ever-changing legal framework. Maintaining the rule of law, the separation of powers, and democracy all depend on this delicate balance. As evidenced by significant rulings such as “Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)[9]” has played a significant role in safeguarding individual rights and maintaining the fundamental principles of the Constitution. But it needs to be used carefully, according to the limits established by the Constitution. Judicial restraint highlights the significance of upholding the federalist ideals and honouring the sovereignty of elected representatives, as demonstrated by rulings such as “S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)”.
It serves as a check on the possible overreach of judicial activism, making sure the court doesn’t take over the legislature’s and the executive branch’s rightful policy making responsibilities. Excessive restraint, however, might have negative effects, such as undermining the public’s confidence and its obligation to protect the Constitution. The fine line that separates restraint from activism must always change to meet the new demands and difficulties that society faces. The Indian court must uphold the concepts of democracy and separation of powers while being sensitive to complicated concerns pertaining to social inclusion, economic fairness, environmental preservation, and gender equality.
The trajectory of Indian jurisprudence has been significantly shaped by landmark decisions, which embody the judiciary’s dedication to preserving constitutional ideals, safeguarding fundamental rights, and tackling societal issues. But difficulties like judicial interpretation,
the efficacy and efficiency of justice are still being put to the test by appointments, vacancies, and delays.
References
[1] Chowdhury, P. R. (2011). Judicial activism and human rights in India: A critical appraisal. The International Journal of Human Rights, 15(7), 1055–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2010.482912
[2] Rahman, M., & Badhon, R. Z. (n.d.). A Critical Analysis on Judicial Activism and Overreach.
[3] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597
[4] Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268
[5] State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
[6] S.R Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
[7] Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, AIRONLINE 1999 SC 415
[8] Laxmikanth M, Indian Polity for Civil Service Examinations
[9] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Author :- Ritika Srivastava
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
share this post on