UPSC Exam  >  UPSC Notes  >  Indian Polity for UPSC CSE  >  GS2 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Judicial Activism

GS2 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Judicial Activism | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities. (UPSC GS2 Mains)

Judicial Legislation’ can be defined as laws which are created by the pronouncements of a judge who departs from a strict interpretation of law according to the manifest intention of the legislature. Judicial legislation in context of Indian constitution is opposed to the doctrine of separation of power.
The constitution of India provides the power to legislate only to Indian Parliament and states legislatures. However, any judgment of Supreme Court and High Court regarding any legislation is considered as law in Indian context, which infringes the separation of power jurisdiction.
How is Judicial Legislation antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers? 

  • The power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Court under Article 226 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. 
  • It is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution which constitutes part of its basic structure. 
  • It empowers the Supreme Court and High court to curtail any legislation which infringes fundamental rights of the citizens. 
  • But, a large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities under article 32 and Article 226 has called the courts to intervene in number of cases. 
  • These petitions are completely based on loopholes of different legislations citing need of court’s intervention for social welfare and public interest. 
  • When the court intervenes in such conditions, it sometime pronounces changes in legislation which undermines the power of parliament. 
  • Further, some of the petitions are related to those subjects which do not come under any legislations. 
  • Under such circumstances the court legislates by judgments instead of directing the legislature to enact laws upon the aforesaid subject. Judicial legislations on different subject matters in recent past due to PILs 
  • In recent past judiciary has intervened in matters pertaining to subjects such as bonded labour matters, neglected children, non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers, and petitions from jails complaining of harassment, against police for refusing to register a case, harassment by police and death in police custody, against atrocities on women impact the lives of the marginalized and disadvantaged. 
  • In absence of any appropriate statutory arrangement for these subjects issuance of directives or guidelines by the judiciary is a clear case of judicial intervention. 
  • Although, these subjects are related to infringement of fundamental rights, but the judiciary should direct the central government for guidelines instead of its own guidelines. 

Conclusion 
Although judicial review is part of basic structure of the constitution, it provides for ‘Checks’ on government’s legislative overreach rather than providing an instrument to judiciary to legislate. As ‘Custodian of the Indian Constitution’, the apex court must limit the use of instruments such as ‘Public Interest Litigations’. It must maintain ‘Separation of Powers’ among different organs of the government i.e. Legislature, Executive and Judiciary by exercising instrument of ‘Checks and balances’.

Topics covered - Judicial Legislation, Judicial Activism

The document GS2 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Judicial Activism | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE is a part of the UPSC Course Indian Polity for UPSC CSE.
All you need of UPSC at this link: UPSC
145 videos|603 docs|203 tests

Top Courses for UPSC

FAQs on GS2 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Judicial Activism - Indian Polity for UPSC CSE

1. What is judicial activism?
Ans. Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in interpreting and shaping laws, policies, and the Constitution. It involves judges taking an active role in addressing social issues and filling gaps in legislation, often going beyond the traditional boundaries of their role as interpreters of the law.
2. How does judicial activism impact the balance of power in a democracy?
Ans. Judicial activism can impact the balance of power in a democracy by giving the judiciary greater influence and authority in decision-making. This can sometimes be seen as a positive check on the power of the legislative and executive branches. However, it can also be criticized as undemocratic, as unelected judges may be seen as overstepping their boundaries and making decisions that should be left to elected representatives.
3. What are some examples of judicial activism in India?
Ans. Some examples of judicial activism in India include the Supreme Court's intervention in cases related to environmental protection, human rights, and social justice. For instance, in the Vishaka case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces, filling a legislative void. In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court struck down a provision of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, protecting freedom of speech online.
4. What are the criticisms of judicial activism?
Ans. Critics argue that judicial activism can undermine the principle of separation of powers by giving too much power to the judiciary. They claim that unelected judges should not make policy decisions that should be left to elected representatives. Critics also argue that judicial activism can lead to inconsistency and unpredictability in the interpretation of laws, as judges may be influenced by personal biases rather than strict legal principles.
5. How does judicial activism differ from judicial restraint?
Ans. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two contrasting approaches to judicial decision-making. While judicial activism involves judges taking an active role in shaping laws and policies, judicial restraint refers to a more limited role for judges, where they defer to the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution. Judicial restraint emphasizes the importance of separation of powers and the role of elected representatives in making policy decisions.
145 videos|603 docs|203 tests
Download as PDF
Explore Courses for UPSC exam

Top Courses for UPSC

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Related Searches

ppt

,

Objective type Questions

,

Important questions

,

video lectures

,

past year papers

,

Semester Notes

,

GS2 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Judicial Activism | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE

,

Exam

,

pdf

,

GS2 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Judicial Activism | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE

,

Sample Paper

,

Summary

,

Viva Questions

,

practice quizzes

,

GS2 PYQ (Mains Answer Writing): Judicial Activism | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE

,

study material

,

mock tests for examination

,

Previous Year Questions with Solutions

,

Extra Questions

,

shortcuts and tricks

,

MCQs

,

Free

;