24th April 2025 (12 Topics)
1
Apr
2
Apr
3
Apr
4
Apr
5
Apr
7
Apr
8
Apr
9
Apr
10
Apr
11
Apr
12
Apr
14
Apr
15
Apr
16
Apr
17
Apr
18
Apr
19
Apr
21
Apr
22
Apr
23
Apr
24
Apr
25
Apr
Judicial Review and Judicial Activism
Context
In recent times, several Supreme Court judgments—especially on Article 370, Article 142, and the powers of Governors—have sparked debates over judicial overreach and the balance of power among the constitutional organs. Critics argue the judiciary is encroaching upon executive and legislative functions, raising concerns over whether India is witnessing judicial despotism.
What is the issue?
- India is governed by a written Constitution, where powers are divided among three key organs—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Ideally, these organs should function independently while maintaining a healthy balance.
- But in recent times, questions are being raised about whether the judiciary—especially the Supreme Court—is overstepping its limits, thus disturbing this balance.
- Terms like “judicial overreach,” “judicial activism,” and even “judicial despotism” are being used to describe the court’s interventions in matters typically under the domain of the executive or legislature.
What is Judicial Review and Judicial Activism?
- Judicial Review is the power of the constitutional courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) to examine the legality or constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
- Though the phrase is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, Article 13 empowers courts to declare any law violating Fundamental Rights as void.
- Judicial Activism, on the other hand, refers to a more proactive role taken by the judiciary, sometimes stepping into governance-related areas, especially when the legislature or executive fails to act.
- It became prominent during the post-Emergency era when the Supreme Court liberalised locus standi rules and developed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to make justice more accessible.
More Articles
Courses
Study
Notes
Home
Resources
More
