Judicial activism in India refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution and laws of the country. In recent decades, the Indian judiciary has been recognized for its active involvement in promoting social justice, protecting human rights, and curbing corruption. This phenomenon is known as judicial activism and is often seen as a departure from the traditional role of the judiciary in India.

In India, under the leadership of Former Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati, along with Justice O. Chinnappan Reddy, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer and Justice D.A. Desai, the foundation of Judicial Activism was laid in the mid-1970s. The Constitution does not confer any authority or jurisdiction for ‘activism’ as such on the supreme court or high courts.

Judicial Activism Meaning

The phenomenon of judicial activism is characterised by the willingness of the courts to intervene in matters that were traditionally considered outside their jurisdiction.

In practice, judicial activism involves the judiciary taking an active role in initiating legal action, investigating cases, and providing remedies beyond traditional legal remedies. This has resulted in the evolution of the role of the judiciary from being a passive arbiter of disputes to an active participant in shaping public policy. Judicial activism has been instrumental in expanding the scope of democracy in India by ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected and the government is held accountable for its actions. However, it has also been the subject of criticism for overreaching its jurisdiction and encroaching on the powers of the executive and legislature.

Evolution of Judicial Activism in India Across Three Key Stages

The evolution of judicial activism in India can be divided into three broad stages: 

Phase of dominant executive (1950-1970)

Post-independence, Judicial Activism was almost absent during this period. The working of the Judiciary was dominated and intervened by the Executive and Legislative organs of the government as the then government commanded a healthy majority not only at the union level but also in almost all the states. Thus, this was a period of the classical judiciary in which it did not engage in any kind of activism.

Phase of tussle between judiciary and executive (1970-2000) 

This period, especially the decade of 1970’s was marked by the tussle between the judiciary and executive. The supreme court, during this period, started examining the spirit and essence of constitutional provisions so as to protect the supremacy of the constitution and prevent it from the tyranny of the executive. Such a proactive role of the supreme court can be seen especially after its verdict of “Basic Structure doctrine” in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case. It was in this period that the foundation of judicial activism was laid by the Supreme court.

Phase of dominant judiciary (2000-till now)

During this period, Judicial Activism gained more prominence. On some occasions, the judiciary even indulged itself in the policy arena by framing guidelines for the policy which can be seen in Prakash Singh Case (Guidelines for police reforms), TSR Subramaniam case (Guidelines for civil services reforms), etc. Such actions of the judiciary are criticised by the constitutional experts and were termed as ‘judicial overreach’. The areas in which the judiciary has become more active are health, child labour, political corruption, environment, education, etc. 

Landmark judgements involving judicial activism are given below: