judicial activism

Judicial activism describes an active role taken by the courts in protecting rights and checking the other organs of the State, especially where the legislature or executive has failed to act. In India it is associated with the Supreme Court from the late 1970s: widening Article 21, relaxing locus standi through public interest litigation, epistolary jurisdiction, continuing mandamus and guidelines issued in the absence of legislation.

Its critics call excess activism “judicial overreach”, an intrusion into the domain of the legislature and executive contrary to separation of powers. The opposite approach is judicial restraint. Activism should not be confused with judicial review, which is the constitutional power itself; activism is a way of using it.

Example

Judicial activism through PIL let the Supreme Court act on letters from prisoners and journalists and enforce the rights of undertrials.

In Indian law

• Articles 32, 142 and 226, Constitution of India
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 INSC 209: liberal standing for public interest litigation

See also

public interest litigation · judicial review · continuing mandamus · separation of powers

Read more in the study notes

• Judicial review, judicial activism and judicial accountability (Indian Constitutional Law - New Challenges)
• Judicial review (Constitutional Law I)
• Public interest litigation and the role of the judiciary in environmental protection (Environmental Law)
• Judicial independence: appointment, transfer and removal of judges (Indian Constitutional Law - New Challenges)
• Law-making: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary (Interpretation of Statutes and Principles of Legislation)
• The nature of the judicial process: Cardozo and the common law model (Judicial and Legislative Process)