Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint
Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint, two important concepts in the functioning of courts, especially higher judiciary like the Supreme Court.
Judicial Activism
Definition:
Judicial Activism occurs when courts actively interpret the Constitution or laws in a broad and dynamic manner, often stepping beyond traditional boundaries to protect rights, promote justice, or fill legislative or executive gaps.
Key Features:
Courts take an active role in ensuring justice and protecting rights.
Willingness to expand or reinterpret laws or constitutional provisions.
Courts may strike down laws or executive actions they find unconstitutional.
Often involves public interest litigation (PIL) and enforcement of fundamental rights.
Seen as a tool for social change and correcting governmental failures.
Examples:
The Supreme Court of India in the Vishaka case laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplace through judicial activism.
Activism in environmental protection cases or rights of marginalized groups.
Pros:
Protects citizens' rights vigorously.
Helps in accountability of government.
Fills gaps when legislature or executive fail.
Cons:
Risk of courts overstepping their role (undermining separation of powers).
May be seen as “legislating from the bench.”
Judicial Restraint
Definition:
Judicial Restraint is a philosophy where courts limit their own power by deferring to the decisions of the legislature and executive, avoiding interference unless there is a clear violation of law or Constitution.
Key Features:
Courts respect the roles of other branches of government.
Avoid interference in political or policy matters.
Narrow interpretation of laws and Constitution.
Emphasizes sticking to precedent and established legal principles.
Courts intervene only when absolutely necessary.
Examples:
Courts refusing to interfere in political questions or policy decisions.
Avoiding invalidating laws unless clearly unconstitutional.
Pros:
Maintains balance of powers.
Respects democratic decision-making.
Prevents judiciary from becoming too powerful or activist.
Cons:
May lead to judicial passivity and failure to protect rights.
Can delay justice if courts avoid taking necessary action.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Judicial Activism | Judicial Restraint |
|---|---|---|
| Role of Judiciary | Proactive, expansive interpretation | Restrained, limited to constitutional limits |
| Approach | Courts may overrule legislature/executive | Courts defer to legislature/executive |
| Focus | Protecting rights, social justice | Maintaining balance, respecting separation of powers |
| Examples | PILs, progressive judgments | Avoiding interference in political questions |
| Risk | Judicial overreach | Judicial passivity |
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments