Evolution of Judicial Activism: How SC’s Role Has Changed Post-2020
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
Since 2020, the role of the supreme court of india in shaping public policy, defending fundamental rights, and interpreting the Constitution has seen a notable shift. Judicial activism, once viewed as a tool to bridge administrative gaps, is now evolving to respond to complex questions of liberty, transparency, and governance in a digitally connected and politically polarised environment.
Here’s an exploration of how judicial activism has changed in recent years, through key developments, legal references, and major verdicts.
Key Shifts in Judicial Activism Post-2020
1. Greater Caution in Policy Matters
- The Court has increasingly adopted a self-restraint approach in economic and political policy decisions.
- Example: In the demonetisation and COVID-19 vaccine policy cases, the SC deferred significantly to executive wisdom.
- Indicates a shift from activist intervention to constitutional deference under Article 142 only in rare situations.
2. Revival Through Transparency Cases
- Landmark decisions like the Electoral Bonds verdict (2024) and the Pegasus spyware case show renewed judicial push for transparency and accountability.
- These rulings assert the right to information and privacy as core under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, restoring faith in PIL jurisprudence.
3. Rights-Based Interpretation in Social Justice
- In matters like prison reforms, undertrial detention, and environmental protection, the SC has taken a firm rights-based stance.
- Notable reference to Article 21 as a broad umbrella for human dignity, clean environment, and access to justice.
- Courts have also relied on Directive Principles (Part IV) to guide social reform through PILs.
4. Selective Activism in Religious and Cultural Issues
- Post-Sabarimala and Ayodhya, the Court has been cautious in intervening in religious disputes, balancing Article 25 (freedom of religion) with public order and constitutional morality.
- Ongoing challenges like same-sex marriage have shown both restraint and willingness to interpret evolving social values.
5. Technology and Judicial Oversight
- PILs related to digital surveillance, data protection, and algorithmic bias have pushed the SC into a new domain of digital constitutionalism.
- The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) continues to guide current verdicts, but recent activism includes demand for legislative safeguards under Article 32 remedies.
Legal Anchors Driving Judicial Activism
- Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies – the foundation of PILs.
- Article 142: SC’s power to do “complete justice” – used in exceptional situations.
- Article 21: Interpreted to include right to dignity, privacy, environment, health, and fair trial.
- Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression – central in surveillance, press freedom, and dissent cases.
- Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV): Often invoked to shape rights through interpretation, especially in social and economic justice.
Conclusion
Judicial activism in the post-2020 era has become more nuanced—less interventionist in certain executive domains but more assertive where individual rights and democratic accountability are at stake. The Supreme Court now exercises a form of “calibrated activism,” stepping in when the balance between citizen and state is threatened, yet mindful of the limits of judicial reach.
This evolution reflects the Court's growing recognition of its constitutional role not just as an interpreter of law, but as a guardian of democratic integrity in a rapidly changing India. As new challenges emerge—be it digital privacy, political transparency, or climate justice—judicial activism will continue to be tested and redefined by both its restraint and resolve.
RELATED Blog
0 comments