Judicial Activism in India

08 August, 2025

Share on:

Introduction

Judicial activism in India represents a transformative phase in the functioning of the judiciary, where courts move beyond their traditional adjudicatory role to become active participants in addressing societal and constitutional issues. It embodies the judiciary’s proactive approach in interpreting the Constitution, safeguarding fundamental rights, and filling legislative or executive voids. In a vibrant democracy like India, where the separation of powers is a basic principle, judicial activism serves as both a guardian of constitutional values and a corrective mechanism when other institutions falter.

While it has contributed significantly to the evolution of constitutional jurisprudence and public interest litigation, judicial activism also raises pertinent questions about democratic accountability, institutional boundaries, and the potential for judicial overreach. This article explores the concept, evolution, key judgments, instruments, and debates surrounding judicial activism in India.

Concept and Evolution

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are believed to be based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. In India, it has come to denote the judiciary's willingness to depart from the traditional interpretation of laws to achieve justice. This approach gained momentum post-Emergency (1975–1977), when the judiciary sought to re-establish its credibility and independence, which had been severely compromised during that period.

A major milestone was the liberalization of locus standi through the introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The landmark decision in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) allowed individuals or groups, even if not directly affected, to approach the courts in public interest. This transformed the judiciary into a vehicle for social change and empowerment of the marginalized.

Constitutional Basis

Though the term "judicial activism" is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, it derives legitimacy from several constitutional provisions:

Article 32 and Article 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to enforce fundamental rights.
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) has been expansively interpreted to include a wide array of rights such as the right to health, environment, education, livelihood, and privacy.
Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) have also been judicially enforced despite being non-justiciable.

These provisions have enabled the judiciary to play an activist role, especially in areas where legislative or executive action has been insufficient or absent.

Instruments of Judicial Activism

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): This mechanism allows the judiciary to address public grievances, especially those affecting marginalized communities. PILs have addressed issues ranging from environmental degradation to bonded labour and custodial deaths.
Suo Motu Actions: Courts have increasingly initiated proceedings on their own based on newspaper reports, letters, or public complaints on matters of grave concern.
Judicial Review: Through this, courts examine the constitutionality of laws or executive actions. While review is a traditional function, an activist approach may lead to broader interpretations or striking down laws in favor of public interest.
Judicial Guidelines: In the absence of legislation, the courts have laid down guidelines that function as de facto law until formal laws are enacted. A classic example is the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) on sexual harassment at the workplace.

Landmark Cases

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: This case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that Parliament could not amend the Constitution to alter its core features, such as secularism, democracy, and the rule of law. It marked a definitive assertion of judicial authority over constitutional amendments.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: The court held that the procedure under Article 21 must be "just, fair and reasonable", significantly expanding the scope of the right to life. This case laid the foundation for subsequent activist interpretations of Article 21.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India: A series of environmental PILs filed by advocate M.C. Mehta led to significant directions on air and water pollution, vehicular emissions, and hazardous industries. The court laid down the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle in environmental law.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: In the absence of a law to address sexual harassment, the Supreme Court formulated comprehensive guidelines for the workplace. These were based on international conventions and later formed the basis for the POSH Act, 2013.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India: The court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 of the IPC. It emphasized the right to privacy, dignity, and equality, reinforcing progressive constitutional values.

Arguments in Favour of Judicial Activism

Protection of Fundamental Rights: In a country with widespread socio-economic disparities, the judiciary often acts as the only accessible forum for justice.
Accountability and Good Governance: Judicial activism serves as a check on arbitrary or corrupt actions by the executive and legislature.
Social Transformation: Activist courts have played a key role in shaping public discourse and promoting progressive reforms in areas like gender justice, environmental protection, and minority rights.
Filling Legal Vacuums: In the absence of legislation or policy, courts have stepped in to provide necessary legal frameworks.

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint

The debate between activism and restraint is not about absolutes but about balance. While judicial restraint respects the roles of the other branches and promotes institutional modesty, judicial activism becomes necessary when those institutions fail to discharge their constitutional duties. An ideal judicial philosophy would be one that carefully navigates between the two, acting only when constitutionally mandated or morally compelling.

Conclusion

Judicial activism in India has undoubtedly played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s democratic and constitutional trajectory. It has provided voice to the voiceless, upheld the dignity of individuals, and ensured accountability in governance. However, it must be exercised judiciously, with a clear understanding of constitutional boundaries and institutional competencies.

The future of judicial activism lies not in its abandonment, but in its calibrated and principled use, guided by constitutional morality, democratic accountability, and public interest. As India continues to face complex legal and social challenges, a responsive yet restrained judiciary remains critical to the health of its constitutional democracy.