Judiciary is that branch of government that interprets the laws or says what the laws mean & democracy means a form of government in which the citizens share the power. The anatomy of the Indian Constitution is broadly Montesquiean, and among the customary trinity, the Founding Fathers vested in the Judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, sweeping powers beyond what comparable courts in other countries, including the United States. Judicial democracy does so on the grounds that judges, though in some ways accountable to the democracy of which they are part, are usually relatively independent compared to other officials. 

The Court’s greatest judicial innovation—and the most important vehicle for the expansion of its powers—has been its institution of Judicial Activism. In PIL cases, the Court relaxes the normal legal requirements of “standing” and “pleading,”  and the Court has expanded its own powers to the point that it sometimes takes control over the operations of executive agencies.

During COVID-19 pandemic, Delhi High Court even issued a contempt notice to the Centre on the oxygen issue. Court played its role in micro-management of pandemic, fixing oxygen quota and distribution. Similarly, the Uttarakhand High Court pulled up the state government for allowing the Kumbh Mela to go ahead against scientific advice and not following standard operating procedures. According to a study, there is direct correlation between judiciary and economic growth. Thus, judicial governance becomes imperative in democracies.

Significance

• Judicial activism acts as a mechanism to curb legislative adventurism and executive tyranny by enforcing Constitutional limits.
• It helps in upholding faith of citizens in constitution and judicial organs.
• Judicial activism fills legislative vacuume areas, which lack proper legislation. This help country to meet the changing social needs. E.g. Vishakha guidelines to counter harassment of women at work place.
• Sometime politicians afraid of taking honest and hard decisions for fear of losing power. Judicial activism helps in plugging such active political lacunae.
• Judicial activism help in enhancing administrative efficiency and help in good governance.
• It sometimes helps in balancing powers among various organs of government through judicial control over discretionary powers.
• Progressive interpretation of law has expanded the rights of the people. e.g. Right to privacy under Article 21.

Criticisms

• It destroys the spirit of separation of powers. Thus damage the balances between various organs of government.
• Judicial activism may lead to inactivity of legislature and executive, leading to running away from duties and responsibilities which they hold for people of India.
• The judiciary is neither competent nor responsible for exacting executive accountability. Under the parliamentary system this role falls upon the parliament in general and the Lok Sabha in particular.
• Judicial interference into the working of a democratically elected executive undermines the mandate of the people reposed in the elected government. For example, the SC struck down NJAC Act in favour of the collegium system.

However, through the doctrine of basic structure, Supreme Court of India has established constitutional government in true sense by protecting basic ethos of the Constitution. To conclude, quoting Lord Bryce, “There is no better test of the excellence of a government than the efficiency and independence of its judicial system.” It means an independent, impartial and effective judiciary is an indicator of excellence of a thriving democracy.