Judicial activism can be seen as a way for judges to bring about change and promote justice. Judges play a crucial role in our legal system. They interpret laws and make decisions in court cases. But sometimes, they go beyond just applying the existing laws. They may take a more active role and make decisions that have a bigger impact on society. This is known as judicial activism. They might interpret the law in a broad and flexible way to address new and evolving challenges. For example, they could protect the rights of marginalized groups.

Judicial activism often involves challenging laws made by the government.

• Judges are people who decide legal cases and make sure laws are followed.
• Judicial activism happens when judges make decisions that change or create new laws. It is not just about applying existing ones.
• Instead of sticking strictly to what the law says, judges use their own beliefs and values to shape their decisions.
• This can mean expanding or reinterpreting the meaning of words in the law to fit their own ideas.
• Judicial activism can have both positive and negative effects.
• Supporters say it allows judges to protect individual rights and make the law fairer.
• Critics say it goes against the proper role of judges. It can undermine the power of elected officials to make laws.
• Sometimes, judicial activism is controversial and leads to debates and disagreements.

Judicial Activism Methods

Judicial activism refers to judges interpreting and using the law in a way that goes beyond what is written and what has been done before. They actively shape public policy with their decisions. 

Here are some common ways judges engage in judicial activism:

Broad Interpretation of the Constitution

Some judges interpret the constitution broadly, considering how society and culture have changed. They focus on the principles and values of the constitution, not just what the framers originally meant.

Creative Statutory Interpretation

Judges may interpret laws creatively to address current social issues. They may stretch the law''s wording. They might also use techniques like purposive interpretation to achieve desired outcomes. 

Expansion of Constitutional Rights

Activist judges may expand constitutional rights beyond what they were initially known to be. They might identify new rights or make existing ones broader. By this, they safeguard marginalized groups or tackle fresh social issues. 

Judicial review and striking down laws

Activist judges review laws made by the government to see if they follow the Constitution. They try to get rid of laws that they think violate constitutional rights or principles.

Policy-Based Reasoning

Judicial activism often refers to the following:

• judges making decisions to support specific policy goals or 
• judges making decisions to fix perceived social injustices. 

They think about the wider impact and results of their decisions. It is not just about the specific case they are working on.

Public Interest Litigation 

Judges encourage public interest litigation. Here individuals or organizations bring cases to advocate for social or policy changes. This lets judges get involved in matters that might not have gone to court before. This makes a bigger impact on policies and social issues. 

Significance of Judicial Activism

Protecting rights

Judicial activism helps ensure that people''s rights are upheld and that everyone is treated fairly.

Promoting equality

Judges play an active role in interpreting laws. This helps to prevent discrimination and unfair treatment.

Adapting to change

Judicial activism allows the court system to address new challenges. It adapts laws to fit the current circumstances.

Balancing power

Judges help maintain a balance of power among different branches of government. They prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

Checks and balances

Judicial activism serves as a check on the actions of the government. It ensures that it respects the rights of individuals and follows the law.

Caution needed

Activism may lead to decisions based on personal opinions rather than the law itself. Hence, some argue that judges should stick to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution.

Evolution of Judicial Activism in India

Here are the key points about the evolution of judicial activism in India:

• The Indian judiciary was largely passive in the early years of independence. It had a very limited role to play.
• With time, the judiciary started taking a more active approach, especially during the 1970s and 1980s. 
• In the 1970s, many judges began to take a more active role in shaping the law and public policy.
• The Supreme Court of India began interpreting the Constitution in a broader way. It gave importance to fundamental rights and social justice.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was introduced in the 1980s. This allowed people to go to court on behalf of those who were treated unfairly.
• One of the most famous examples of judicial activism in India is the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
• The decision, in this case, marked a turning point in the evolution of judicial activism in India.
• Since then, the Indian judiciary has become active in shaping the law and public policy.
• Judicial activism has been a controversial issue in India. However, there is no doubt that judicial activism has played a significant role in shaping the law and public policy in India.

Pros of Judicial Activism

• Judicial activism helps ensure that people''s rights are upheld and that everyone is treated fairly.
• It helps prevent discrimination and unfair treatment, promoting equal rights for all.
• Judicial activism allows the court to address new challenges. It helps it to adapt laws to fit the current circumstances.
• It helps maintain a balance of power among different branches of government. This prevents any one branch from becoming too powerful.
• Judicial activism holds the government accountable for its actions. It ensures that the government follows the law and respects the rights of individuals.

Cons of Judicial Activism

• Judges may go beyond their role and make decisions based on personal opinions instead of the law itself.
• Judicial activism might interfere with the democratic process. It allows judges to make decisions instead of elected representatives.
• Some believe that judges should stick closely to the original meaning of laws and the Constitution. Activism may result in decisions without proper checks and balances.
• Judicial activism may lead to delays in the legislative process. Courts intervention in policy matters potentially hinders effective governance.
• When judges play an active role, there is a risk of inconsistency in their decisions. Different judges may interpret laws differently.

Criticisms

Judicial activism is a dangerous overreach of judicial power.

• Judges are not elected officials. Hence, they are not accountable to the people in the same way that elected officials are. 
• When judges strike down laws that they disagree with, they are essentially making the law themselves. This can lead to uncertainty and instability in the law. 
• It is not clear who has the ultimate authority to make law.

Judicial activism can be used to promote the personal views of judges.

• Judges are human beings and have their own personal beliefs and values. 
• It can be difficult to tell whether judges struck down laws because they believe the law is unconstitutional or because they simply disagree with the law''s policy. 

Judicial activism can lead to a decline in public trust in the judiciary.

• Judges take an active role in shaping the law. This can lead to a perception that the judiciary is not impartial and is not acting in the best interests of the people. 
• This can make it more difficult for the judiciary to carry out its essential functions. This includes resolving disputes and upholding the rule of law.

Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint 

Difference between judicial activism and judicial overreach 

Judicial activism is when judges play an active role in making decisions that shape the law. Some people think it''s good as it helps protect people''s rights and bring about change. Others argue that judges should stick to interpreting laws, not making them. Judicial activism can have both positive and negative effects on society. Protecting people''s rights and at the same time respecting the role of other branches of government is necessary. It''s important to strike a balance between them. Judicial activism can be a powerful tool for change, but it''s crucial for judges to be fair and follow the Constitution.