Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in interpreting and applying the Constitution to address gaps in legislation and ensure justice. While it has contributed significantly to safeguarding rights and promoting accountability, judicial activism has also faced criticism for overstepping its boundaries. Below, we discuss three key demerits of judicial activism in detail, along with their implications and examples.
1. Encroachment on Separation of Powers
One of the primary criticisms of judicial activism is that it undermines the doctrine of separation of powers. This principle, fundamental to democracy, ensures that the legislature, executive, and judiciary function independently and within their respective domains. Judicial activism can lead to:
- Overstepping of Jurisdiction: By entering areas reserved for the legislature or executive, courts risk upsetting the balance of power. For example, when the judiciary issues directives on policy matters, it effectively acts as a policymaker, a role constitutionally assigned to the legislature.
- Weakening Democratic Processes: Judicial overreach can undermine democratic principles by allowing unelected judges to make decisions that should be debated and decided by elected representatives. This creates a governance imbalance and reduces the accountability of policymakers to the electorate.
Example:
In the Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, the Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, filling a legislative vacuum. While the guidelines were necessary, critics argue that such policymaking should have been left to the legislature.
Implications:
Encroachment on the separation of powers can lead to tension between the judiciary and other branches of government. It may also erode public confidence in democratic institutions, creating a perception that the judiciary wields excessive power.
2. Potential for Judicial Overreach and Arbitrary Decisions
Judicial activism can sometimes result in judicial overreach, where courts exceed their mandate and interfere excessively in governance. This overreach can:
- Lead to Arbitrary Rulings: Courts may issue directives or judgments that lack a clear constitutional basis, reflecting the personal beliefs or biases of judges rather than the letter of the law. This can create inconsistency and unpredictability in the legal system.
- Disrupt Administrative Efficiency: Frequent judicial interventions in policy or executive decisions can disrupt administrative functioning. For instance, stay orders or mandates on projects may delay critical development initiatives.
Example:
In the MC Mehta vs. Union of India (1985) case, the Supreme Court ordered the closure of certain polluting industries in Delhi to combat air pollution. While the intention was commendable, critics argue that the decision ignored the socioeconomic consequences for workers and businesses, demonstrating the arbitrary nature of some activist rulings.
Implications:
Judicial overreach can alienate other branches of government and create governance bottlenecks. It also risks undermining the judiciary’s credibility, as decisions perceived as arbitrary or biased can invite criticism and controversy.
3. Risk of Eroding Judicial Neutrality
Judicial activism can blur the line between adjudication and advocacy, leading to questions about judicial impartiality. When courts actively shape policy or enforce socio-economic rights, they may:
- Be Perceived as Partisan: By taking positions on controversial issues, the judiciary risks being seen as favoring one side, which can compromise its image as an impartial arbiter of justice.
- Undermine Public Trust: The judiciary’s legitimacy rests on its neutrality and adherence to the rule of law. Activist rulings that appear to reflect ideological biases can erode public confidence in the judiciary’s independence.
Example:
In the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (1993) case, the judiciary asserted its primacy in judicial appointments by creating the Collegium system. Critics argue that this decision prioritized judicial supremacy over transparency and accountability, leading to perceptions of self-interest.
Implications:
Erosion of judicial neutrality can weaken the judiciary’s authority and hinder its ability to act as a credible check on the other branches of government. It can also lead to greater politicization of judicial decisions, damaging the institution’s integrity.
Balancing Judicial Activism and Restraint
While judicial activism can address pressing gaps in governance and protect fundamental rights, its drawbacks highlight the importance of judicial restraint. Courts should exercise activism cautiously, ensuring that their interventions are guided by constitutional principles and do not encroach upon the roles of the legislature and executive.
Suggested Measures:
- Adherence to Constitutional Limits: The judiciary should ensure that its decisions are rooted in constitutional provisions and do not reflect personal or ideological biases.
- Respect for Legislative Intent: Courts should interpret laws in a manner that respects the intent of the legislature, intervening only when laws violate fundamental rights or constitutional principles.
- Focus on Judicial Efficiency: Activism should not compromise the judiciary’s primary role of adjudicating disputes and delivering timely justice.
Conclusion
Judicial activism is a double-edged sword. While it has played a pivotal role in advancing justice and accountability, its potential to encroach on the separation of powers, lead to arbitrary decisions, and erode judicial neutrality cannot be ignored. Striking a balance between activism and restraint is essential to maintaining the judiciary’s credibility and ensuring that democratic principles are upheld. By exercising caution and adhering to constitutional limits, courts can continue to serve as guardians of justice without compromising the democratic framework.
