Judicial Review and Judicial Activism: Power and Accountability

 

Judicial Review and Judicial Activism: Power and Accountability

Judicial Review and Judicial Activism are interconnected concepts that shape the role of courts in modern democracies, particularly in the context of constitutional adjudication.Judicial review empowers courts to examine and invalidate law, policies,or government actions that violate constitutional principles, thereby ensuring that the state adheres to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. Judicial activism involves the judiciary taking a proactive role in shaping public policy and promoting social justice, often through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and other innovative approaches, such as judicial law making.

Judicial activism

Under the Indian constitution, the state has the primary responsibility for ensuring the country’s justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The state is obligated to protect the fundamental rights of individual and to implement Directive principles of state policy. By upholding human rights, the judiciary has come a long way in terms of judicial activism. The judiciary has approached every aspect of human life and proven to be an advantage for the poor by shifting from the “Locus Standi” principle to Public Interest Litigation. While judicial activism has undoubtedly contributed to the advancement of social justice, it also raises concerns about the limits of judicial power and the potential of politicization. The term judicial activism first time a judge used it in a court was in the case of Theriot v. Mercer in 1959. But, it was opposed by some judges, every jurist defines it differently. In contrast Thomas Jefferson refers to it as the ‘despotic power’. According toV.D. Kulshrestha, judicial activism occurs when the judiciary is charged with actually participating in the law making process and subsequently emerges as a significant player in the legal system.

Judicial review

Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the central and state governments. If on examination, the judiciary finds them violativeof the Constitution (ultra vires), it declares them illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid (null and void). In India, judicial review is grounded in the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to review laws and government actions. Landmark cases suchKeshvanandaBharti v.State of Kerala(1973) and Minerva Mills v.Union of India(1980)have established the importance of judicial review in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring constitutional governance.

Case study: Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Maharashtra (1973)

The kesavananda Bharti case is a landmark example of judicial review in India. In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of several amendments to the constitution, including the 24^th, 25^th, 25^th, and 29^th amendments.

Significance of the case:

·         Established the doctrine of basic structure, which limits the power of parliament to amend the constitution.

·         Affirmed the importance of judicial review in protecting the constitution and individual rights

·         Ensured that the constitution remains a living document that adapts to changing circumstances while maintaining its core values.

Case study: Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

The Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan case is a landmark example of judicial activism in India. In this case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace, in response to a petition filed by a group of women’s rights activists.

Significance of the case

·         Recognized the fundamental right to safe and respectful work environment.

·         Established a framework for addressing sexual harassments complaints.

·        Promoted a culture of respect and accountability in the workspace.

Challenges and controversies                               

Judicial review and judicial activism face several challenges and controversies, including:

·         Separation of powers and Judicial overreach

·         Uncertainty and Inconsistency

·         Politicization of judiciary

·         Undermining democracy

·         Risk of bias

·         Balancing individual rights and collective interests

·         Interpreting constitutional provisions

Conclusion

In conclusion judicial review and judicial activism are crucial components of constitutional governance, protecting individual rights and promoting social justice. To ensure their effective exercise, the judiciary must prioritize clear constitutional interpretation, respect for precedent, and transparency and accountability. By doing so , the judiciary can uphold the rule of law, promote democratic governance, and build a more just and equitable society. The Indian judiciary’s commitment to these principles is essential for shaping the country’s constitutional identity and promoting social justice, while adapting to evolving societal needs and values.

 

NAME: SUHANI SINGH PARIHAR 

COLLEGE NAME: Pt. MOTILAL NEHRU LAW COLLEGE 

1ST SEMESTER