Judicial Activism and Indian Democracy Essay Example

the desired results. The judiciary, by acting as a watchdog through activism, preserves the fundamental essence of democracy. Despite various interpretations leading to unclear meanings, judicial activism cannot be disregarded due to its crucial role in upholding the law. Instead of dismissing the term, there is a necessity for clarification on what judicial activism truly entails.

In contrast to judicial review and other forms of jurisdiction, judicial activism permits the judiciary to increase its authority over the executive and legislative branches. Nevertheless, it entails a proactive approach in which the judiciary not only interprets the law but also evaluates its potential adverse effects on individuals. In India, judicial activism has played a vital role in providing a safety net and fostering optimism for achieving justice. This responsibility is upheld by our Constitution and Judiciary.

India's Constitution created three branches of government - Parliament, Executive, and Judiciary - to uphold the nation's ideals. However, in recent months, dysfunction has plagued Parliament, neglect has affected the Executive, and the Judiciary has taken on a more assertive role. While some argue that the Judiciary is overly assertive, I believe it is acting diligently to protect people's fundamental rights and freedoms from state violations.

The role of the Judiciary in policy formulation is a topic that judges have varying opinions on. Some judges believe it is not necessary for the Judiciary to intervene and see it as the responsibility of the Executive. On the other hand, there are those who argue that the Judiciary should step in to safeguard fundamental rights. This usually happens when the Executive fails to fulfill its legal and constitutional duties, resulting

in violations of people's fundamental rights.

The Indian judiciary is constitutionally empowered to review and restrain the Executive and Legislature to ensure constitutional limits are upheld. It has the authority to invalidate laws that exceed the legislative competence of Parliament or violate the Constitution. Additionally, it can strike down Executive actions if they display blatant illegality or arbitrariness. A Supreme Court judgment holds the force of law throughout the country. This power is encompassed by Articles 13, 21, 32, 226, and 227, while Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the exceptional authority to administer 'complete justice' in any case before it.

The power, which has frequently been used in an unpredictable manner, allowed a Hindu couple to obtain a divorce despite the absence of such grounds in the Hindu Marriage Act. In order to comprehend the idea of judicial activism, two theories have been developed. The first theory, known as the "Power vacuum filling" theory, suggests that when a system lacks a specific organ or that organ fails to act, other organs will expand their influence to fill the void. Nature does not permit vacuums to persist.

The executive and legislative branches sometimes lack interest or fail to take action, leading to a void in certain areas. This is when the dynamic judiciary steps in, known as judicial activism. Another theory called "social want" suggests that people desire something not provided by the executive or legislative branches. In response, the judiciary becomes proactive and takes on the responsibility of meeting these wants. This proactive approach is referred to as judicial activism.

The doctrine of separation of powers, emphasized by Montesquieu, is highly valued

in the Constitution. Montesquieu argued that in order to safeguard liberty, it was crucial to separate judicial, legislative, and executive power. He believed that without this separation, judges would have the ability to make laws and thus could exert arbitrary control over citizens' lives and freedom. Furthermore, if there were no distinction between judicial power and executive power, judges would possess oppressive strength.