![]() State of Rajasthan (1997) perfectly defines the need for judicial activism. It has been really active in reminding the government servants to do their duties properly, warning the officers to look after the environmental pollution, taking steps to stop illegal construction going somewhere on the roadside, etc. As the emergency ended, the judiciary became very active, and in recent times, the active role of the judiciary has increased many folds. ![]() That was considered a black day for the whole country. That happened because the power of the Lok Sabha was misused by the government. The approach of judicial activism has become quite effective since the days when a national emergency was declared in the year 1975. Judicial activism acts as an effective tool for implementing constitutional principles and citizens’ rights when the executive and legislation fail to do so. As per Article 13 of the Constitution of India, if any law made by the legislature does not conform to the Constitution, then the judiciary can declare that particular law to be null and void. One of the methods of judicial activism is judicial review. In other words, judicial activism is the active role of the judiciary in preserving the constitutional and legal system of the country by upholding the rights of the citizens. This happens when legislation is not able to properly perform its function. Sometimes, the judiciary has to come forward and review the actions of the executive to protect the rights of the people and provide socio-economic justice to the people. But what happens when there is absolutely no guidance for addressing a factual situation before the court? This is when judicial activism comes into the picture. It is presumed that laws are capable of solving any dispute before the court therefore, the legislature makes laws to protect the rights of the citizens. This article covers all the aspects of judicial restraint, along with a brief introduction to judicial activism and judicial overreach. Hence, one can not speak of judicial restraint as a concept without speaking of judicial activism. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two sides of the same coin. These are the two alternative judicial philosophies that judges use while making a decision. Hence, the concept of judicial restraint was introduced. This practice of the judiciary is known as judicial overreach and has often been criticised for its over-interference. ![]() Sometimes, the judiciary encroaches into the domain of the legislature or executive. It is the proactive role of the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens. Under judicial activism, the judiciary has the power to review the actions of the other two branches of the government through the process of judicial review. The judiciary is not just a mere spectator. Since the judiciary is the guardian of our Constitution and preserves our rights, it is considered the last resort of every citizen. Any citizen who suffers due to any action or any inaction of the executive appears before the judiciary to seek justice. The legislature passes the law, the executive is responsible for implementing the laws, and the judiciary interprets the law. There is a concept of separation of powers in our Constitution according to which a balance of power must be maintained between the three branches of the government (legislature, executive, and judiciary). How are judicial activism and judicial review related?.When should the court use judicial restraint?.Difference between judicial activism, judicial overreach and judicial restraint.Difference between judicial restraint and judicial overreach.Its relevance to the concept of democracy.Reasons for exercising judicial restraint.The rule against feigned or collusive lawsuits.How is it different than laws in the US.By referring to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |