Introduction
Judicial activism has been a defining feature of India’s judiciary, with courts taking proactive stances on issues ranging from environmental protection to human rights.
Judicial Activism Defined
Judicial activism involves courts interpreting laws expansively, sometimes venturing into areas typically managed by the executive or legislature. This approach has brought significant advancements but has sparked debate on judicial overreach.
Examples of Judicial Activism
Cases like Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) established guidelines on sexual harassment, filling gaps in legislative action. The Supreme Court’s intervention in pollution control and healthcare highlights the judiciary’s role as a guardian of public welfare.
Balancing Activism with Restraint
While activism addresses pressing issues, excessive intervention can disrupt the balance of power. The judiciary must balance its role, intervening only when necessary to uphold rights.
Conclusion
Judicial activism remains vital in a democracy but must be practiced judiciously. By doing so, the judiciary can fulfill its role as a protector of the Constitution without overstepping its boundaries.