Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach: Balancing the Powers in Democracy
GS-2, Unit-1, Sub Unit-2, HPAS Mains
In India, the judiciary plays a very important role in protecting our rights and keeping the government accountable. It ensures that no law or action of the government goes against the Constitution. But in recent years, there has been a lot of discussion about how far the courts should go in using their powers. This is where the ideas of judicial activism and judicial overreach come in.
What Is Judicial Activism?
Judicial activism means that the courts take an active role in protecting people’s rights and making sure that justice is done, even when laws are unclear or the government fails to act. It usually happens when the judiciary interprets the Constitution in a broader, more progressive way.
The idea became popular in India during the 1980s through Public Interest Litigations (PILs) — cases filed by anyone on behalf of people who cannot reach the courts themselves. Because of judicial activism, the Indian judiciary has given many important judgments that helped society.
Some key examples include:
- Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court said that the “basic structure” of the Constitution cannot be changed by Parliament.
- Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997): The Court laid down rules against sexual harassment at the workplace.
- MC Mehta cases: The Court took strong steps to protect the environment and control pollution.
In these cases, the judiciary stepped in to protect public interest when the other branches of government did not act effectively. So, judicial activism often becomes a tool for social change and justice.
What Is Judicial Overreach?
While activism is positive, judicial overreach happens when courts cross their limits and interfere in areas meant for the executive or legislature. In simple terms, it means the judiciary starts doing the work of other organs of government.
For example, if the court starts deciding how policies should be made or who should be appointed to a post, it may be seen as overreach. Even though such actions are often done with good intentions, they can disturb the balance of power in a democracy.
Some examples often discussed are:
- The cancellation of 2G spectrum licenses (2012) and coal block allocations (2014), which aimed to stop corruption but also affected policy-making.
- The NJAC case (2015), where the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to change how judges are appointed. Many felt the Court protected its own powers rather than allowing Parliament to reform the system.
Why Does Judicial Activism Happen?
Judicial activism often comes into play because the other branches fail to perform their duties properly. If the legislature delays making laws or the executive does not implement them, people approach the courts for help. In such cases, the judiciary steps in to fill the gap.
For example, many environmental and social justice reforms in India became possible only because the courts took initiative. In that sense, activism acts as a safety valve for democracy — it prevents injustice when other systems fail.
The Need for Balance
The Indian Constitution divides power among three organs —
- Legislature: makes laws,
- Executive: implements them, and
- Judiciary: interprets them.
If one organ starts performing the duties of another, the balance gets disturbed. So, while the judiciary must remain strong and independent, it must also practice self-restraint.
To maintain this balance:
- Courts should intervene only when rights are clearly violated or when no other remedy exists.
- The executive and legislature should also work efficiently so that courts don’t need to step in often.
- There should be mutual respect and coordination among all three organs of government.
Conclusion
Judicial activism has been one of the strengths of Indian democracy. It has protected citizens’ rights, ensured government accountability, and expanded the meaning of justice. But if activism turns into overreach, it can harm the principle of separation of powers that keeps democracy healthy.
The key is balance. The judiciary should act when necessary but with humility and caution. Activism must not turn into interference. When all three organs — the legislature, executive, and judiciary — work in harmony, democracy functions smoothly and citizens benefit the most.
In short, judicial activism should be about responsibility, not authority. It should continue to serve as the guardian of justice while respecting the boundaries set by the Constitution.