Chapter 6: Judicial Activism| Class 11 Polity Notes

In recent years, the terms “judicial activism” and “Public Interest Litigation (PIL)” have gained prominence in discussions surrounding the judiciary. These concepts have transformed the role of the judiciary, making it more accessible and responsive to the needs of the people. Let’s explore these concepts in detail!

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) are significant concepts in contemporary discussions about the judiciary. Many view them as transformative elements that have made the judiciary more accessible and responsive to the people’s needs.

Origins of PIL

Traditionally, individuals could approach courts only if they were personally aggrieved. However, in 1979, a shift occurred when the Supreme Court decided to hear a case filed on behalf of others, focusing on matters of public interest. This marked the emergence of PIL, allowing public-spirited citizens and organizations to seek judicial intervention for societal issues.

Early PIL Cases

Notable PIL cases, such as Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar and Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration, highlighted concerns like prisoners’ rights and prison conditions. These cases illustrated how PILs expanded the notion of rights beyond personal grievances to encompass broader societal interests.

Impact of PIL

PILs enabled the judiciary to consider cases based on newspaper reports and complaints, leading to the popularization of the term “judicial activism.” By addressing issues like clean air, unpolluted water, and decent living conditions, the judiciary demonstrated its commitment to safeguarding collective rights.

Critiques of Judicial Activism

While judicial activism has democratized access to justice and enhanced executive accountability, it has also faced criticism. Some argue that it has burdened the courts and blurred the separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislature. There are concerns that judicial overreach into executive matters may disrupt the delicate balance among the three branches of government.

While judicial activism has its benefits, maintaining a balance between the judiciary’s proactive role and the functions of other branches of government is crucial for upholding democratic principles. Critics caution against excessive judicial intervention in matters traditionally within the purview of the executive and legislature, emphasizing the importance of respecting institutional boundaries.

The Emergence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

What is PIL?

Public Interest Litigation, also known as Social Action Litigation, deviates from the traditional concept of legal recourse. Historically, individuals could approach the courts only if they were personally aggrieved. However, in 1979, a landmark decision by the Indian courts altered this paradigm. The judiciary began entertaining cases filed on behalf of others, addressing issues of public interest that affected society at large.

Expanding the Scope of Rights:

PILs have become a powerful tool for judicial activism, enabling the judiciary to expand the concept of rights. Issues such as clean air, unpolluted water, and decent living conditions are now considered rights for the entire society. This shift in perspective acknowledges the collective rights of citizens and their entitlement to seek justice for violations.

Access to Justice for All:

Through PILs, the judiciary has demonstrated a willingness to consider the rights of marginalized sections who may struggle to approach the courts independently. Public-spirited citizens, social organizations, and lawyers can now file petitions on behalf of the needy and deprived, ensuring broader access to justice.

Impacts of Judicial Activism

Democratizing the Judicial System:

Judicial activism has democratized the judicial system by granting not only individuals but also groups access to the courts. This inclusive approach enhances transparency and accountability within the judiciary.

Executive Accountability:

By actively engaging with issues of public interest, the judiciary has compelled the executive to be more accountable. Decisions made by the courts have prompted greater transparency in governance, particularly in areas such as electoral reforms and asset disclosure by candidates.

Challenges and Criticisms

Court Overburden:

The surge in PILs has led to an increased workload for the courts, potentially straining judicial resources and delaying the dispensation of justice.

Blurring of Separation of Powers:

Critics argue that judicial activism blurs the line between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Matters traditionally within the purview of the executive, such as pollution control and corruption investigations, are being addressed by the judiciary, potentially encroaching on the domains of other branches of government.

Delicate Balance of Powers:

Judicial activism, while beneficial in many respects, has raised concerns about maintaining the delicate balance of powers among the three branches of government. Some view excessive judicial intervention as undermining the principles of democratic governance, where each branch respects the authority and jurisdiction of the others.

Conclusion

Judicial activism and Public Interest Litigation have undoubtedly reshaped India’s legal landscape, empowering citizens and promoting social justice. However, the challenges posed by overburdened courts and blurred lines of authority underscore the need for a nuanced approach.

Judicial Activism- FAQs

What is judicial activism, and how does it differ from traditional judicial roles?

Judicial activism refers to instances where the judiciary takes an active role in addressing social and political issues beyond its traditional mandate. This can include interpreting laws broadly to protect individual rights or intervening in matters of public interest.

What is Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and how does it contribute to judicial activism?

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) allows individuals or organizations to petition the courts on behalf of others or for issues of public concern. PIL has been instrumental in promoting judicial activism by enabling the judiciary to address systemic issues and protect the rights of marginalized groups.

What are some examples of issues addressed through judicial activism and PILs?

Judicial activism and PILs have been used to address a wide range of issues, including environmental protection, corruption, electoral reforms, and social welfare measures. For instance, the judiciary has intervened to enforce laws on pollution control and promote transparency in governance.

How has judicial activism impacted the balance of powers among branches of government?

While judicial activism has enhanced accountability and access to justice, it has also raised concerns about the separation of powers. Critics argue that excessive judicial intervention may encroach on the domains of the executive and legislature, potentially undermining democratic governance.

What are some criticisms of judicial activism and PILs?

Critics of judicial activism and PILs raise concerns about overburdened courts, potential delays in justice delivery, and the blurring of lines between judicial, legislative, and executive functions. Some also question whether judicial intervention should extend to matters traditionally handled by other branches of government.