Judicial activism in India refers to the proactive role adopted by the judiciary, more particularly the higher courts, in ensuring that laws and policies adhere to the spirit of the Constitution and protect the rights of citizens. It may be understood as judges stepping outside their traditional limits of merely interpreting laws and taking actions to correct issues affecting the public. Judges may change or create new laws and not just simply apply them.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been considered one of the major tools of judicial activism. PIL allows any person or organization to approach the court on the behalf of those who cannot. This has allowed the courts to address various social, economic, and environmental issues, ensuring justice to the disadvantaged group. Ample proof to show that judges have time and again been involved in judicial activism can too be found in the various examples of judges taking an active interest in formulating of legal decisions and policies.

Examples of Judicial Activism

Judges have often indulged in judicial activism, which has been proved by various examples of their proactive participation in shaping legal decisions and policies. In the Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973, the Supreme Court pronounced that nothing can be done by the government to change or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Similarly, in the I.C. Golaknath case, 1967, the Supreme Court held that it was not within the power of Parliament to amend any of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. C. Golaknath case,1967- the court pronounced that Fundamental Rights in Part 3 of the Constitution cannot be amended by the legislature. In 2021 the Supreme Court stayed the new farm laws amid farmers' protests and set up a committee to seek a solution.

Arguments In Favour Of Judicial Activism

It protects citizens' rights by addressing social, economic, and environmental issues through mechanisms like Public Interest Litigation. This has checked the power of the government by ensuring fairness and the associated rule of law. Quite broadly interpreting the Constitution, judges have been creatively interpreting laws for application to current problems. They have expanded constitutional rights and reviewed laws to ensure that these laws agree with the Constitution. These decisions thus support policy goals, redressing social injustice, which takes wider impacts into account beyond the individual instances of cases.

Arguments Against Judicial Activism

The opponents of judicial activism believe that it results in the judiciary overstepping its role and infringing on other branches of government. They believe policymaking and execution is not part of the duty of the unelected judges; rather, such an action disrupts the balance of power due to the potential of conflicts. According to the critics, judicial activism weakens democracy as the courts end up making decisions instead of the elected officials. They also fear that judges may overlook the original intent of the laws, delay legislation, and bring inconsistency in decisions.

The Way Forward

The balanced approach regarding concerns about judicial activism must be upheld. While courts should protect citizens' rights, they should also refrain from overstepping their boundaries." Moving toward judicial accountability and transparency, along with fostering dialogue with other organs of the government, could help a lot. Even though judicial activism brings equality, it should not be personal opinion bound. Integrity in the judiciary respects the "original intent" behind the laws. Thus, while some activism is needed in matters of justice, excess does democracy and justice a great disservice, and should be highly tempered.