Difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism

Judicial Review and Judicial Activism are the two core ideas in the field of justice. Though their goals, strategies, and ramifications are different, both are crucial in forming the legal system. This comparative research examines the distinctions between judicial review and judicial activism, emphasizing the roles, circumstances, and outcomes of both in the political and legal spheres.

What is Judicial Review?

One of the fundamental ideas in the study of constitutional law is judicial review. It speaks about a court’s power to consider whether laws, executive orders, and government policies are constitutional. Ensuring that these laws and acts are in line with the rights and ideals entrenched in the Constitution is the main goal of judicial review. It functions as a means of maintaining the integrity of a country’s constitutional structure, safeguarding individual rights, and defending the rule of law. The foundation of judicial review is constitutional adjudication. When determining whether a legal or governmental action is constitutional, courts look at how closely it adheres to the language of the Constitution and its guiding principles. Judicial review contributes to the preservation of a country’s constitutional structure and the balance of powers between the several departments of government by examining and, where required, overturning unlawful laws or acts.

Key Features of Judicial Review:

• The main goal of judicial review is to ensure that laws and acts are in line with the rights and ideals entrenched in the constitution.
• The judicial review process’s main purpose is to act as a check on the authority of the government.
• It guarantees that the activities of the legislative and executive branches comply with constitutional limitations and keeps them from abusing their power.
• Judicial review is mostly based on known legal precedents, which include past court rulings, constitutional interpretations, and recognized legal concepts.

What is Judicial Activism?

Contrarily, judicial activism is a legal theory that encourages judges, especially those in higher courts, to interpret the law and influence public policy in an active manner. Judges frequently go above and beyond the literal wording of laws or the constitution in order to further justice and deal with social concerns. Judicial activism can take many different forms, but it is essentially defined by judges influencing their rulings with their own personal values, opinions, and legal interpretations. Aiming for fair and just results, judicial activism frequently takes place in the absence of definite legal precedents or textual backing. Judges can encourage social change by applying their interpretation of the law. Judges who engage in judicial activism frequently incorporate their own views and opinions into their decision-making. They could base their choices on their own moral compass.

Key Features of Judicial Activism:

• According to the legal theory known as ‘Judicial Activism’, judges—especially those on higher courts—should be proactive in interpreting the law and directing public policy.
• Addressing important societal concerns like individual liberty, social fairness, and civil rights is frequently linked to judicial activism.
• It enables judges to adapt to changing political and social environments.
• A lot of the time, judicial activism sparks controversy and discussion. Critics claim that it can cause confusion about the division of powers and that judges may go beyond their constitutional authority by formulating policies.

Difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism

Basis	Judicial Review	Judicial Activism
Meaning	Judicial review is the power of courts to review the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government to ensure they comply with the constitution.	Judicial activism refers to judicial decisions that go beyond traditional interpretation of the law and often involve shaping public policy.
Purpose	With an emphasis on upholding the rule of law and safeguarding individual rights, evaluate the constitutionality of acts and legislation to make sure they are in line with the constitution.	Policy-oriented, with the goal of influencing public policy, achieving justice, and frequently tackling societal problems and encouraging fair results.
Approach	Depends on a rigorous textual reading of the constitution, objective legal interpretation, and well-established legal precedents.	Involves interpreting the law broadly, using one’s own values and ideas, and adopting a policy-driven approach that may deviate from the wording of the law.
Context	Based on constitutional judgment and acting as a restraint on governmental authority to protect the constitution’s framework.	Frequently called upon to highlight injustices and encourage change in response to urgent societal challenges.
Legal Precedents	Depends on recognized constitutional interpretations and court decisions.	Judges may deviate from or interpret precedents ingeniously in order to accomplish policy goals.
Controversy	Though still debatable, judicial activism is typically less contentious than it is since it does not include policy-making and can be construed as a challenge to the established division of powers.	Often sparks debate, with some claiming that it can muddy the lines between the separation of powers and force courts to make decisions about public policy.
Example	Striking of Section 66A of the IT Act etc.	Suo moto cases, Introduction of Public Interest Litigation, etc.

Conclusion

Within the legal and judicial sphere, judicial review and judicial activism are two separate but related ideas. Judicial review focuses solely on verifying that laws and acts comply with the constitution and existing legal precedents, whereas, Judicial activism adopts a more proactive and policy-oriented approach, frequently including the personal ideas and values of judges. Understanding the distinctions between these notions is crucial to comprehending the functions and consequences that each concept plays in molding a country’s legal and political landscape.

Judicial Review and Judicial Activism-FAQs

Who holds the charge of judicial review?

In India, the authority to conduct judicial reviews rests with the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

What justifications exist for judicial review?

The main justifications for requesting a judicial review include mistakes in jurisdiction, irregularities in the procedure, irrationality in the decision, and reasonable expectations.

What is an example of judicial review?

Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000 was struck down as, on review, it turned out that the act was against the Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution and hence struck down.

What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial overeach?

Judicial activism urges the judiciary to take a more assertive role in protecting and upholding people’s rights, whereas judicial excess pushes for more restraint on the court’s authority.

What are some examples of judicial activism?

Creation of the “basic structure doctrine” in the 1973 “Keshavanad Bharati case,” which allowed the Supreme Court to further expand the reach of judicial review; adoption of the collegium system; institutionalization of PIL; and prohibition of smoking in public areas based on PIL.

Also refer to:

Difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law

Difference between Public Law and Private Law

Difference between Policy and Law

Difference Between Law and Act

Difference Between Law and Act