Differences Between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism
1. Meaning
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review | It is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, or government policies. It ensures that legislature and executive act within the limits of the Constitution. |
| Judicial Activism | It is the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting laws and the Constitution broadly to promote justice, rights, and social welfare, sometimes even creating law through judgments. |
2. Objective
| Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|
| To check the excesses of legislature and executive and uphold the Constitution. | To protect rights, implement social justice, and fill gaps in law and policy. |
3. Nature
| Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|
| Conservative and restrained – judiciary ensures the law is constitutional. | Proactive and expansive – judiciary interprets the Constitution to address contemporary issues. |
4. Scope
| Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|
| Focuses mainly on legislative and executive actions. | Includes policy matters, social justice, environmental issues, human rights, etc. |
5. Basis in Constitution
| Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|
| Derived from Articles 13, 32, 136, 141, 142 – ensuring laws and actions are constitutional. | Derived from broad interpretation of Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, and Article 32 for public interest. |
6. Nature of Action
| Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|
| Reactive – arises from petitions challenging laws or actions. | Proactive – often initiated by the court itself (suo motu) or through Public Interest Litigation (PIL). |
7. Role of Judiciary
| Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|
| Acts as a guardian of the Constitution. | Acts as a driver of social change and justice. |
8. Case Laws
Judicial Review Cases
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Supreme Court laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Court reviewed constitutional amendments to ensure they do not destroy the Constitution.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) 2 SCC 159
Judicial review used to invalidate the election of Prime Minister for violation of constitutional provisions.
Judicial Activism Cases
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Court created guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at workplace (Vishaka Guidelines) through judicial activism.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395
Court took proactive steps to control pollution in Ganga and other rivers, expanding environmental jurisprudence.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 433
Court used PIL to address human rights violations, exemplifying judicial activism.
9. Key Differences Summary
| Aspect | Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | Checks constitutionality of laws/actions | Proactive intervention for justice and rights |
| Objective | Maintain constitutional limits | Promote social justice and public interest |
| Nature | Conservative and restrained | Expansive and creative |
| Scope | Legislative and executive actions | Rights, environment, social issues, policy gaps |
| Basis | Articles 13, 32, 136, 141, 142 | Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, Article 32 |
| Action | Reactive | Proactive, often via PIL |
| Role | Guardian of Constitution | Driver of social change |
10. Conclusion
Judicial Review is the traditional power of courts to check constitutionality, ensuring legislature and executive do not exceed their powers.
Judicial Activism is a modern, proactive approach where courts actively protect rights, implement social justice, and address public interest issues.
Both are essential for upholding democracy, rule of law, and constitutional governance in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments