Distinguishing Judicial Review and Judicial Activism: A Comparative Analysis
Introduction:
The Indian Constitution, while establishing a robust system of checks and balances, vests significant power in the judiciary. Two crucial aspects of this power are Judicial Review and Judicial Activism. While both involve the judiciary interpreting and applying the law, they differ significantly in their approach and scope. Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review laws and government actions for their constitutionality. Judicial Activism, on the other hand, is a more contested concept, referring to instances where the judiciary takes a more proactive role in shaping public policy, sometimes exceeding its traditional role of interpreting existing laws. This essay will distinguish between these two concepts, highlighting key Supreme Court decisions illustrating each.
Body:
1. Judicial Review:
Judicial Review is the cornerstone of constitutional democracy. It ensures that the legislature and executive branches act within the confines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s power of Judicial Review is derived from Article 141 (law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding on all courts) and Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies). It involves examining laws and government actions to determine their compatibility with fundamental rights, constitutional provisions, and the principles of natural justice. The court can declare laws or actions ultra vires (beyond the powers granted) and void if they violate the Constitution.
- Important Supreme Court Decisions:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case established the “basic structure doctrine,” limiting the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The court held that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered even through amendments. This exemplifies Judicial Review in its purest form, upholding the Constitution’s integrity.
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): This case further reinforced the basic structure doctrine, upholding the judiciary’s power to review constitutional amendments. It demonstrated the court’s commitment to safeguarding the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
- I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): This case clarified the scope of the basic structure doctrine, reiterating the judiciary’s role in protecting the Constitution’s core values.
2. Judicial Activism:
Judicial Activism is a more nuanced concept. It involves the judiciary actively intervening in matters of public policy, often by expanding the scope of fundamental rights or creating new rights through judicial interpretation. While it can be seen as a positive force for social change and justice, it also raises concerns about judicial overreach and the potential erosion of the separation of powers. The line between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism is often blurred, with the latter sometimes being viewed as an extension of the former.
- Important Supreme Court Decisions (Illustrating aspects of Judicial Activism):
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): In the absence of specific legislation, the court laid down guidelines to combat sexual harassment at the workplace. This proactive approach, creating a legal framework where none existed, is often cited as an example of Judicial Activism.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Oleum Gas Leak Case): The court took a proactive role in environmental protection, issuing directions to prevent future industrial accidents and holding polluters accountable. This demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to address pressing societal issues.
- National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case (2015): The court struck down the NJAC Act, asserting its role in judicial appointments. This decision, while rooted in Judicial Review, also reflects a proactive stance in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.
Conclusion:
Judicial Review and Judicial Activism are distinct but related concepts. Judicial Review is the fundamental power of the judiciary to ensure constitutional compliance, while Judicial Activism involves a more proactive role in shaping public policy. While Judicial Review is generally accepted as a necessary component of a constitutional democracy, Judicial Activism remains a subject of debate. Striking a balance between these two is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judiciary and upholding the principles of separation of powers and democratic governance. The Supreme Court’s decisions, while sometimes controversial, reflect its ongoing efforts to navigate this complex terrain. Moving forward, a transparent and accountable judiciary, committed to upholding the Constitution while remaining sensitive to societal needs, is essential for ensuring justice and upholding constitutional values. This requires a continuous dialogue between the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive, fostering a collaborative approach to addressing national challenges within the framework of the Constitution.
APPSC GROUP 1 Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for APPSC GROUP 1 Prelims and APPSC GROUP 1 Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by APPSC GROUP 1 Notes are as follows:-- APPSC GROUP 1 Mains Tests and Notes Program
- APPSC GROUP 1 Prelims Exam - Test Series and Notes Program
- APPSC GROUP 1 Prelims and Mains Tests Series and Notes Program
- APPSC GROUP 1 Detailed Complete Prelims Notes