Introduction
The powers of the Supreme Court for the protection of the constitutional rights of citizens are of the widest amplitude. As indicated by Black’s Law Dictionary, “judicial philosophy which motivates judges to depart from the traditional precedents in favour of progressive and new social policies”. Judicial activism is enunciated and implemented by court rulings associated with being found on close to home or political contemplations instead of on existing law. Judicial activism also implicates that most of the judges assume themselves as policymakers on the part of society that goes past their customary job as translators of the Constitution and laws.
Origin
The appropriate history of judicial activism is not very clear but the emergence of judicial activism through judicial review can be followed back to the unwritten Constitution of Britain during the Stuart time of 1603-1688. In the year 1610, the intensity of judicial review was declared for Britain through the activism of Justice Coke. Developing the standards of judicial review, Chief Justice Coke announced that if a law made by the Parliament disregarded the standards of ‘precedent-based law’ and ‘reason’ at that point the courts may survey and decree it as void. A person named Sir Henry Hobart in 1615 replicated the same theory of judicial review given by Coke. Again, it was repeated by Sir John Holt in 1702.
A superb example of the past of judicial activism can be found in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, 1954. In 1951, a gathering of guardians, in the interest of their children, filed a claim against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas. The guardians had endeavoured to enlist their African-American youngsters in the nearest neighbourhood school that year, however, were rejected enlistment.
The suit mentioned that the school district turns around its strategy of racial isolation, in which the area worked separate schools for high contrast kids. The offended parties for the situation asserted that racial isolation brought about inferior facilities and treatment of their children. This decision went against the legal principle of stare decisis, which expects judges to maintain earlier decisions of higher courts. This is likewise alluded to as case precedent.
Origination of Judicial Activism in India
Supreme Court of India began as a technocratic court during the I950s however gradually began gaining more force through constitutional interpretation. In India, judicial activism can be both positive and negative too.
A series of landmark judgments led to the evolution of judicial activism in India:
- A K Gopalan v. the State of Madras: It spoke to the principal situation where the court seriously analyzed and deciphered key central rights enrolled in the constitution including articles 19 and 21. Habeas corpus writ was filed in this case. the Supreme Court dismissed the contention that to deprive an individual of his life or freedom, not just the procedure prescribed by law for doing so should be followed yet in addition that procedure must be fair, reasonable, and just. To hold in any case is present the fair treatment condition in Article 21 which had been intentionally overlooked when the Indian Constitution was being framed.
- Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: The request under Article 32 of the Constitution of India tested the constitutional validity of Chapter 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and the forces presented upon police authorities by its provisions on the ground that they violate the rights ensured to citizens by Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: The requirement of substantive due process was brought into Article 21 by judicial interpretation. In this way, the due process provision, which was intentionally and purposely kept away from by the Constitution makers, was presented by judicial activism of the Supreme Court.
Judicial Activism in India
Basically, the judicial activism in India gives more powers and capacity to the Apex Court, i.e., the Supreme Court and also to the high courts. But, such ability is not provided to the lower courts or the sub-ordinate courts to declare any law unconstitutional and void if ever it violates or even if it is inconsistent with any one or more provisions of the Indian Constitution. To the degree of such inconsistency, while proclaiming a law as constitutional and void, the courts don’t recommend any elective measures.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above contexts that judicial activism may help in maintaining the rule of law as it can be helpful for securing the fundamental rights of the citizens and shielding their interest from the awful officials and government officials. But outrageous activism will prompt overextend of judicial powers that may prompt an abuse of powers by the judges. So, in order to ensure that no intervention happens, judicial review ought to be practised within the domain of doctrine of separation of powers.
This blog is written by Rashi Srivastava, Amity University.
Some of her blogs-
- RIGHT TO DIE: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?
- AN ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL IPR POLICY
- COPYRIGHT VS DESIGN
- DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN INDIA
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
