Judicial Activism in India

The word 'judicial activism' was meant for Arthur Schillinger Jr. in his essay
'Supreme Court: 1947', which was first published in Fortune Magazine in 1947.
Although the history of judicial activism is the date of 1803 when the concept of
judicial review was developed by Chief Justice Marshal in a matter of celebration
of Marbari v. Madison. The emergence of the judicial review gave birth to a new
movement which is known as judicial activism.

Judicial activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision, in which the judges

allow their personal views about public policy among other factors to guide their
decision. The Constitution of India divides powers into the government in three
branches, i.e. the legislature, executive and judiciary. This happens when the
judiciary moves in executive and legislative shoes and instead of explaining the
laws, instead of interpreting the law, it is considered as a judicial activism.

Unlike the American Constitution, Indian Constitution automatically provides

scope or place for the emergence of judicial activism on the basis of 13, 32, 226,
141 and 142. Article 13 provides detailed powers in the judicial review of the
Supreme Court, Article 32 and Article 226 makes the supreme court and the High
Court respectively as patrons and guarantors of fundamental rights, Article 141
indicates that declaring power law of the Supreme Court And it is not enacted, but
to explain the law during its work, this law is bad Consumer Article 142, the
Supreme Court is required to complete justice enables any reason or earlier
pending cases to exercise its jurisdiction to pass the order or in the order form.

The reasons for the development of judicial activism include the expansion of the
rights of hearing in the administrative process, without excessive delegation,
extension of judicial review on administration, promotion of open government,
indiscriminate exercise of contempt power, To achieve economic, social and
educational objectives and to pass the irreversible orders, its lost Expanding the
standard rules of interpretation.
The noun of judicial activism was explained by the Supreme Court in the case of
Golananath which was recognized in it, in which the court had given the
comprehensive beneficial explanation of Article 13 of the Constitution, the judicial
theory of possible speech was determined. But in real terms, the history of judicial
activism in India began with the introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in
the second half of the seventies.

The concept of PIL in India started by Justice Krishna Krishna Iyer and PN
Bhagwati. The term 'public interest litigation' means to remove any litigation or
some public grievances organized for the benefit of the public. In simple words,
this means that any public enthusiast can file a petition in the Supreme Court and
move the court for public reasons.

The concept of public relations is in line with the principles contained in Article
39A of the Constitution of India to protect and distribute immediate social justice
with the help of law. In the case of SP Gupta versus Union of India, Justice
Bhagwati, 1981 (transfer of judges) established the validity of the PIL.

A famous case of judicial activism in India is the decision of majority in the

Keshavanand Bharati case (the issue of fundamental rights). Apart from this, the
case of National Human Rights Commission versus Arunachal Pradesh state, 2G
spectrum case 2012 is important for judicial activism.

If we look at the decision made by the Supreme Court in many PILs, it is clear that
most PILs are spread in environmental pollution, inmates with decisions, personal
freedom, corruption etc. The court has given several important instructions to the
executive. Examples of PILs as well as the legislature

It is a court of law to avoid any change in the PIL strategy system. Another
criticism is that judicial activism is coming between the concept of separation of
power.

It is also believed that the issue of pending cases in the PIL will increase further.
According to another thought, the misuse of PIL has reached ridiculous phase and
a petition has been filed on minor issues such as student-teacher strike, shortage of
buses, painting of street signs and so on.
Judicial activism in India, in its true meaning, is the date of commencement of the
Constitution. Therefore, the study of judicial activism in India from the historical
perspective is limited to the duration of the period 1950 to 1977, after the period
1978, after the emergency or current perspective.

Judicial activism has increased mainly due to the failure of the executive and the
legislatures to take action. Second, it has also arisen due to the fact that there is no
doubt that the legislature and the executive have failed to distribute them.

Third, this is because the whole system has been affected by ineffectiveness and
inactivity. Infringement of basic human rights 1.0 has also been motivated for
judicial activism. Finally, due to misuse and misuse of certain provisions of the
Constitution, judicial activism has gained importance

During the past decade, many examples of judicial activism have gained
prominence. Bhopal Gas Tragedy and Jessica Lal murder case are included in the
top two. The latter was open to all and closed case. Money and muscle power tried
to win well but recently, with the help of judicial activism, the matter came to a
strong decision.

In the 1980s, two notable developments in the Indian law system provided a strong
incentive for judicial activism in India. Existing environmental laws were
expanded in the country and judicial activity started through public interest
litigation, with earnest money in India.

In keeping with the allegations and to convert 'judicial activism' into 'judicial
overratch', the Supreme Court issued the following instructions
o
The court should encourage real and correct PIL and effectively
discourage and prevent public interest litigation filed for external
views.
o
Before considering a PIL, the court must verify the identity of
the first petitioner.
o
The court must be fully satisfied that there is sufficient public
interest before entertaining on the petition.
In short, the power of judicial review is recognized as part of the infrastructure of
the Indian Constitution. The role of the executive of the judiciary lies in that
power. Judicial activism is absolutely essential for democracy because without a
conscious and enlightened judiciary, democracy will be reduced to an empty shell.
When our elected representatives have failed to give you a welfare state, then let
the judiciary spring. The judiciary should bear in mind that the only thing is that
whenever the common man is going to get justice, then he should not go to the
boundaries set by the purity, that is, the Constitution.