Judicial activism vs judicial overreach debate
The debate between judicial activism and judicial overreach lies at the heart of the functioning of a constitutional democracy, particularly in countries like India and the United States, where the judiciary plays a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution and laws. While judicial activism is often seen as a positive use of judicial power, judicial overreach is perceived as a negative transgression of the judiciary into the domains of the legislature and the executive.
🔍 I. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: Definition
Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary to uphold the rights of citizens, enforce constitutional limits on the legislature/executive, and ensure justice, often through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) or expansive interpretations of the Constitution.
It’s considered necessary when the other two branches (executive & legislature) fail to act or protect fundamental rights.
⚠️ II. JUDICIAL OVERREACH: Definition
Judicial Overreach is when the judiciary crosses its constitutionally assigned boundaries and interferes in the domain of legislature or executive. This often takes the form of issuing administrative or policy decisions rather than interpreting law.
Judicial overreach is widely criticized as being undemocratic or undermining the doctrine of separation of powers.
⚖️ III. KEY DIFFERENCE:
| Aspect | Judicial Activism | Judicial Overreach |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Corrective or proactive | Excessive or intrusive |
| Justification | Ensures justice, checks executive/legislative | Goes beyond constitutional mandate |
| Perception | Often welcomed in public interest | Often criticized as undemocratic |
| Limit | Within interpretation of law | Enters law-making or policy enforcement |
🧑⚖️ IV. CASE LAWS (Detailed)
Here are several landmark Indian cases that illustrate judicial activism and judicial overreach, with an explanation of how each reflects either concept.
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
🔹 Type: Judicial Activism
🔹 Bench: 13-judge bench
🔹 Issue: Could Parliament amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights?
✅ Judgment:
The court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution, even via constitutional amendments.
💬 Significance:
Activist role of the judiciary in preserving constitutional integrity.
It strengthened democracy by placing limits on Parliament’s power.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
🔹 Type: Judicial Activism
🔹 Issue: Was the government justified in impounding Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her a chance to be heard?
✅ Judgment:
The SC held that Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) must be interpreted broadly, and due process is essential. It expanded the scope of Article 21.
💬 Significance:
The court interpreted fundamental rights liberally, paving the way for a rights-based jurisprudence.
Set the tone for future PILs and activism.
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
🔹 Type: Judicial Activism
🔹 Issue: In the absence of a law on sexual harassment at the workplace, could the judiciary lay down guidelines?
✅ Judgment:
The SC laid down the Vishaka Guidelines, which acted as law until Parliament passed the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
💬 Significance:
A classic case of judicial activism filling a legislative vacuum.
The judiciary acted within constitutional limits, using international conventions and fundamental rights.
4. Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agrawal (2019)
🔹 Type: Judicial Activism (with possible Overreach element)
🔹 Issue: Should the Chief Justice of India (CJI) come under the Right to Information (RTI)?
✅ Judgment:
The SC held that the CJI’s office is a public authority under RTI Act, promoting transparency.
💬 Significance:
Asserted transparency and accountability in the judiciary itself.
Some critics viewed this as a radical step, but it falls within the activist framework, not overreach.
5. Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)
🔹 Type: Judicial Activism
🔹 Issue: Could passive euthanasia be allowed in the absence of a statutory law?
✅ Judgment:
The SC allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, until Parliament enacted a law on the matter.
💬 Significance:
Judiciary addressed a moral and legal vacuum.
Demonstrated activism, not overreach, as it waited for Parliament to act.
6. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case – 2015
🔹 Type: Judicial Overreach (as per critics)
🔹 Issue: Could the constitutional amendment introducing NJAC to replace the collegium system for judicial appointments be struck down?
✅ Judgment:
The SC struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and NJAC Act as unconstitutional, reviving the collegium system.
💬 Significance:
Critics call this judicial overreach, as the judiciary invalidated a unanimously passed constitutional amendment.
The Court held that NJAC undermined judicial independence, part of the basic structure.
However, critics argue it was undemocratic and reflected institutional bias.
7. Ban on Firecrackers – 2017 onwards
🔹 Type: Judicial Overreach
🔹 Issue: Supreme Court imposed restrictions and bans on sale and bursting of firecrackers during Diwali.
✅ Rulings:
The SC banned certain types of crackers and set time limits for bursting.
💬 Significance:
Many argue this was judicial overreach because:
It involved policy-making, not law interpretation.
It affected religious and cultural practices without legislative mandate.
8. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
🔹 Type: Judicial Activism
🔹 Issue: Increase in mob lynchings and whether the court could issue preventive guidelines.
✅ Judgment:
The court issued detailed guidelines for preventing mob lynchings and directed states to appoint nodal officers.
💬 Significance:
Court responded to executive inaction.
Proactive steps to protect fundamental rights.
✅ V. Conclusion
Judicial Activism:
Acts as a guardian of the Constitution.
Fills legal and policy vacuums where needed.
Ensures social justice, especially for marginalized groups.
Judicial Overreach:
Disrupts separation of powers.
May undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary.
Risks the judiciary becoming unelected lawmakers.
🏁 Summary Table
| Case | Activism / Overreach | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Activism | Basic Structure Doctrine |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Activism | Expanded personal liberty |
| Vishaka (1997) | Activism | Guidelines in legal vacuum |
| NJAC Case (2015) | Overreach (debatable) | Invalidated 99th Amendment |
| Firecracker Ban | Overreach | Entered cultural/policy domain |
| Aruna Shanbaug (2011) | Activism | Passive euthanasia allowed |
| CJI under RTI (2019) | Activism | Judicial transparency |
| Mob Lynching Guidelines (2018) | Activism | Protective measures issued |
RELATED Blog
0 comments