send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Needless to say that the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary are the three pillars of Indian democracy. The Constitution empowers them and burdens them at the same time to perform their respective duties and obligations. The legislature formulates the law as per the policy articulated by the executive and the judiciary interprets the same. This is how the doctrine of separation of powers, bedrock of any functional yet liberal democracy actually operates and is a vital guarantee for upholding rule of law.
However, sometimes it is seen that the judiciary under the guise of interpreting the law goes a step beyond its Constitutional mandate and ends up legislating thereby usurping the legitimate function of the other organ of the government. The law which it gives in the process, is usually different from the existing law. This is what we call as judicial activism.
Nevertheless, there is justification for judicial activism in India or elsewhere. In the contemporary era, it is felt that the legislature and the executive have increasingly failed to discharge their respective duties. Ideally, the legislature and the executive are the custodians of honest public life. They should indeed remove the mask which the corrupt and the inefficient wear and they are the one who should initiate against those who steal, cheat and deceive the public. But when the custodians themselves compromise with corruption and inefficiency, the judiciary has no option but to step in to set the things right.
As rightly observed by a constitutional expert, the judicial activism become a justified activism on the part of the judiciary: "When the legislature fails to perform its responsibilities; When those in power may be afraid of taking bold and hard decisions for fear of losing power or for electoral compulsions; and may have public issues referred to courts in order to buy time and consequently delay decisions ....and pass the odium of strong decision making on to the courts... when the legislature and the executive fail to protect the basic rights of the citizens such as right to life with dignity, right to clean environment and so on… Under all these circumstances, the judicial activism per se becomes a sort of necessary evil and must not set any limits for itself because the situations and circumstances can be legion." As such, judicial activism must be extended to reign in BCCI, performing an important public function in a cricket loving country like India, punishing officials and demoralizing bureaucracy as a class, pulls up the Election Commission of India to introduce electoral reforms especially cleansing Indian politics from criminal elements, ordering the closure of liquor vends along the vicinity of national highways to check road accidental mortality due to drunken driving, ordering CBI inquiries into scandals, crimes and custodial deaths and so on the list is endless where judicial activism can possibly intrude in.
Fallout of judicial activism: Some of the valid apprehensions against judicial activism may be cited as below:
Amidst the various pros and cons of judicial activism, the only viable alternative for a peaceful coexistence of all three organs of the government is the judicial restraint as far as possible. Let the people decide and correct the legislative or executive lapses through their valuable franchise in the next general elections or to set these organs right by resorting to various democratic options such as civil society debates and peaceful demonstrations. Hence, the remedy is not in the judiciary taking over the legislative or executive functions because that will not only violate the delicate balance (separation of powers) enshrined in the Constitution, but also raises valid question regarding judiciary’s expertise and resources to perform those specialized functions which fall within the legislative or executive domain…
By: Chandan Sharma ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources