Drawing the line between justice and jurisdiction

In a vibrant democracy like India, the role of the judiciary goes far beyond adjudicating disputes.

- Prachi Gupta & Vasu Ranjan Shandilya

It stands as the sentinel of the Constitution, safeguarding the rights and liberties of citizens. Over the past few decades, India has witnessed the increasing influence of judicial decisions in matters traditionally considered the exclusive domain of the legislature or executive. This growing assertiveness has sparked an ongoing debate on judicial activism versus judicial overreach, raising important questions about the separation of powers and the role of courts in public life.

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting the rights of the people, interpreting laws in progressive ways, and ensuring that justice is delivered, especially when other organs of government fail to act. It often involves judges going beyond the text of the law to uphold constitutional values.

On the other hand, judicial overreach occurs when the judiciary exceeds its constitutional mandate and encroaches upon the functions of the legislature or the executive. This happens when courts begin to make laws, implement policies, or interfere excessively in administrative affairs, thereby disturbing the delicate balance of power envisaged in the Constitution.

The distinction between activism and overreach is often a matter of perspective. What appears as necessary intervention to some may be viewed as encroachment by others. The Indian experience illustrates both the value and the pitfalls of an assertive judiciary.

Evolution of Judicial ActivismThe roots of judicial activism in India can be traced back to the 1970s and 1980s when the Supreme Court began expanding the scope of fundamental rights and liberalizing rules of standing in Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The court's approach changed drastically during the post-Emergency period when it recognized the need to empower citizens against state excesses.