Blog Details

Judicial Activism- Meaning

In the US, judicial activism was originally proposed in 1947. It has been observed in India since since the Emergency period began. A country's attempts to defend and develop the rights of its inhabitants depend heavily on the court. Judicial activism is the term for the judiciary's proactive involvement in defending the legal system and constitutional foundation of the country. This necessitates sporadically invading the executive's territories. Candidates need to be aware that judicial overreach amplifies judicial activism. Judicial activism can be distinguished from other forms of government intervention such as laws that are created by lawmakers or those which are passed by popular vote (such as a referendum). Judicial activism is an attempt to expand government power beyond what was intended by those who created it. It is an attempt to impose one person's will on another person or group of people, often through force or coercion.

Judicial activism is seen as a success in democratising access to justice and aiding poor populations as a result of the work of judges V R Krishna Ayer and P N Bhagwati. The Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as "judicial ideology which leads judges to break from the ordinary precedents in favour of progressive and new social policies." The concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is always brought up when talking about judicial activism. This article will teach you about judicial activism, including its methods, significance, advantages, and disadvantages.

Methods of judicial activism

The various methods of judicial activism followed in India are given below:

1. Judgment review (power of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and to declare any such law or order of the legislature and executive void, if it finds them in conflict with the Constitution)

2. PIL The petition is only approved by the court if there is a significant public interest involved; the harmed party does not file the petition. The petitioner must have no personal stake in the dispute.

3. interpretation of the constitution

4. Utilizing international law to protect constitutional rights

5. supervisory authority over lesser courts by higher courts

What is Judicial Activism?

When a court issues decisions that do not follow the legal interpretations that other reasonable judges would accept, it may be argued that the court is creating law from the bench rather than executing already-existing laws. Similar to this, there are times when judicial activism manifests itself in the form of the court rendering a judgement on a subject that was not specifically discussed in the case at hand.

For Example,

When L and C got divorced five years ago, a child custody and child support agreement was made. L, who requests a court order raising child support, has custody of the kids 24/7, with the exception of the two weekends per month when they visit their father. The judge will decide whether an increase in child support is reasonable when utilising the required formula for child support computations when the case is brought before the court. This is determined by the proportion of time that each parent spends with the kids, as well as by their respective gross incomes and tax situations. Judge decides that the father need to spend more time with his children even if he pays a sizable sum in child support. He rejects the mother's request for higher child support and modifies the child custody arrangement to give the father every weekend and one day each week. In this instance of judicial activism, the judge's decision was influenced by his feelings or opinions. He violated the standard procedure for deciding child custody, which entails assessing the custody arrangements that will be in the kid's best interests. L has the right to appeal the ruling on the grounds that the court erred in making such a change to the custody arrangement and, consequently, in rejecting the request for a modification to the child support order. The likelihood that the appellate court would concur and send the matter back to the family court for further proceedings is good.

Advantages of Judicial Activism

1. It provides the upcoming government branches with a system of balanced governance.

2. It offers accommodative information.

3. It offers each person a voice to fight against unfair problems.

4. People would be able to vote and make decisions without having to sit in a chair.

5. It has judges in high regard.

6. Its system of balanced governance is unique to it.

Disadvantages of Judicial Activism

1. It views governmental affairs and the letter of the law as separate concerns.

2. It doesn't significantly affect any laws.

3. In the long term, its decisions would come last.

4. It might be impacted by local problems.

5. Instead of selecting judges, it names them.

Contribution of PIL in Judicial Activism

PIL stands for "public interest and litigation," where "public interest" is defined as "public welfare" and "litigation" is defined as "legal activity aimed at finding a resolution." Therefore, "public interest litigation" is defined as "legal activities for the welfare of minority or disadvantage people or community as a whole."

In its most basic form, public interest litigation describes any legal proceeding in which the plaintiff seeks to advance the welfare or interests of the general public before the supreme court under Article 32, the high court under Article 226 or a public magistrate under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Court of 1973.

The Public Interest Litigation is another step in the direction of judicial activism since it makes it simpler for the judiciary to implement new changes as they are made to the Indian Legal System over time and under varied circumstances.

References

1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism

2. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/judicial-activism/

3. https://lawcorner.in/impact-of-judicial-activism-on-government/

Co-Author: Aashna Chopra