Judicial Activism Research Paper

In this project, we have taken an endeavor to discuss judicial activism vis-à-vis judicial restraint as how one poses problems for another and keeps a corresponding relationship through out. Judicial activism has always been a source of heated debate, especially in the light of recent developments in this regard. Over the last few years with various controversial decisions, judges of the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts have once again highlighted the debate that has always generated a lot of heat. But still, what the term “judicial activism” actually connotes is still a mystery. From the inception of legal history till date, various critics have given various definitions of judicial activism, which are not only different

It is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction and Separation of power. It is an inscriptive term and has a different meaning for different people. It implies going beyond the normal constraints which are applied to jurists and the constitution and this gives right to jurists to cut off any legislation or rule which goes against the constitution or against the precedent. The clear concept of judicial activism was set forth by Chief Justice P.N.Bhagwati and Professor Upendra Baxi.As an ideology of the judicial process, ‘judicial activism’ implies the “use of the court as an apparatus for intervention over the decisions of policymakers through precedent in case law.” Merriam Websters Dictionary of Law define Judicial activism as "The Practice in the Judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that deport from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent".The roots of Judicial activism are to be seen in the court’seasy assertion regarding judicial restraint.In A.K.Gopalan v Madras,although the court conceived its role in a narrow manner. It asserted that its power of judicial review was inherent.Judicial Activism can be positive as well as negative. A court engaged in altering power relations in to make them

Following the theory of separation of powers, organs of a modern government legislature, executive and judiciary are entrusted with three different functions viz. policy making, policy implementation and policy adjudication respectively. One question that arises before the judiciary after every judgement is to whether to put any new guidelines and norms for the executive and legislature for further protection and up to what extend. When judiciary lays down the guidelines, they move a step closer in getting involved in the public administration. It has over the period of time changed from a mere spectator to a proactive player. This is what one calls as judicial separation in general terms. The Indian judiciary has taken upon itself the task of ensuring maximum freedom to the masses and in the process, to galvanize the executive and the legislature to work for public good. Judicial activism is basically a deviation from Separation of power principle. Judicial activism is based on the theory of Jurisprudence called Sociological Jurisprudence, which arms the judiciary with wide legislative and executive powers.The traditional understanding of the judicial process is that while the legislature makes laws and the executive implements them, the judiciary’s function is only to interpret and apply