What is Judicial Interventions / Judicial Activism?
Historical Background
Key Points
7 points- 1.
Writ Jurisdiction: Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts) empower courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.
- 2.
Power to do Complete Justice: Article 142 grants the Supreme Court extraordinary power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter.
- 3.
Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders (Article 13, 32, 226).
- 4.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A mechanism allowing any public-spirited individual or organization to move the court for the enforcement of public rights or interests.
- 5.
Issuance of Guidelines: Courts often issue guidelines (e.g., Vishaka Guidelines on sexual harassment) in the absence of specific legislation.
- 6.
Enforcement of Policy: Courts can direct the executive to implement existing policies or guidelines, as seen with the Sports Code.
- 7.
Checks and Balances: Acts as a crucial check on the powers of the executive and legislature, upholding the Rule of Law.
Visual Insights
Judicial Activism & Interventions: Constitutional Basis & Mechanisms
This mind map outlines the constitutional foundations and various mechanisms through which the Indian judiciary exercises activism and intervenes in public affairs, including sports governance.
Judicial Activism / Interventions
- ●Constitutional Basis
- ●Key Mechanisms
- ●Primary Objectives
- ●Associated Debates
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
This table differentiates between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint, two contrasting approaches to the judiciary's role, which are often debated in the context of governance and policy-making.
| Aspect | Judicial Activism | Judicial Restraint |
|---|---|---|
| Role of Judiciary | Proactive, interprets law broadly, steps into executive/legislative domains | Passive, interprets law strictly, defers to executive/legislature |
| Interpretation of Law | Expansive, purposive, considers socio-economic context | Literal, strict, adheres to original intent |
| Policy Making | Often issues directives, guidelines, or effectively makes policy (e.g., Sports Code enforcement, Vishaka Guidelines) | Avoids policy-making, leaves it to elected branches |
| Public Perception | Seen as protector of rights, but also accused of overreach | Seen as upholding separation of powers, but sometimes criticized for inaction |
| Constitutional Basis | Art. 142, PIL, broad interpretation of Art. 21 | Separation of Powers doctrine, respect for parliamentary sovereignty |
| Examples in India | Interventions in Sports Federations, environmental cases, electoral reforms | Reluctance to interfere in political questions, upholding legislative supremacy in certain areas |
Recent Developments
4 developmentsIncreased judicial scrutiny in areas like environmental protection, electoral reforms, and administrative appointments.
Debates surrounding the concept of judicial overreach versus judicial restraint, particularly when courts delve into policy-making domains.
Continued use of PILs to address issues of public importance, including governance of autonomous bodies.
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have actively intervened to ensure compliance with the National Sports Development Code of India (2011) by National Sports Federations.