The Judiciary plays a central and important role in a constitutional democracy such as India; they help protect individual rights and acts as a safeguard for the Rule of Law. The Indian courts have evolved beyond merely resolving disputes to include innovative new developments through active intervention in Public Policy issues where there’s an important public interest. This innovation led to the debate surrounding Judicial Activism & Judicial Overreach.
Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism is when the courts take “the initiative” in protecting individuals from violations of their rights by creating remedies or providing services when the elected officials (executive and legislature) are failing to do so.
The Indian Judiciary has often intervened to protect Fundamental Rights and provide Justice via Public Interest Litigation (PIL) due to incorrect executive and legislative action in the areas of Human Rights, Corruption, and Environmental Protection. A positive example of Judicial Activism would include extending Article 21 (Right to Life) to include a right to a clean environment or the right to privacy or the right to dignity.
In conclusion, Judicial Activism is the proactive element of the Judiciary where they intervene on behalf of individuals in order to provide Justice when other Government Agencies fail to do so.
Judicial Overreach
Judicial Overreach is when the Judiciary exceeds its authority and intervenes in the duties and responsibilities given by the Constitution to the Executive or Legislature. This very action violates the doctrine of Separation of Powers and raises very serious and legitimate concerns.
When courts begin to create public policy, manage administrative functions or Direct things that are outside the bounds of legal interpretation, many people will label that as “overreach.
In other words – too far out of their realm of authority and responsibility, and well beyond the scope of their authority.
The Basic Differences Between The Two Are:
- Judicial Activism — (Generally) is seen as a positive, necessary force in the pursuit of justice, and
- Judicial Overreach — (Typically) is seen as excessive interference in areas beyond Courts’ jurisdiction.
Yet, there is a very fine Line Between The Two, and that Line hinges Upon Perspective. An Example of this would be; One Person May Feel That A Court’s Decision Was Judicial Activism, Whereas Another Individual Would See The Same Rendered Decision as Being An Example of Judicial Overreach.
Why Is The Debate Important?
The Debate Is Important Because It Has A Direct Impact On The Balance Of Power Within A Democracy. The Constitution Of India Is Based On The Principle Of Separation Of Governmental Powers; Legislative, Executive And Judicial system.
Should Courts Become Overly Active, There Is A Very Real Risk That The Fundamental Principles Behind Our Democratic Institutions Would Be Weakened; Conversely, Should The Courts Remain Inactive, There Is A Very Real Risk That The Rights Of Citizens Will Suffer.
In Conclusion
Judicial Activism Has Played A Very Important Role In Strenghtening Democracy And Protecting The Rights Of Individuals Within India; Conversely, Legitimate Concerns Have Been Raised As To Whether Or Not There Has Been An Overextension/Overstep Of Institutional Boundaries.
The Real Challenge Is To Maintain The Proper Balance Of Activism, To Preserve The Pursuit Of Justice, While Constraining The Judiciary From Exceeding Their Jurisdiction And Abiding By The Separation Of Powers.
For more simple and practical legal insights, stay connected with Lawyer Talks.
– Team Lawyer Talks