Justification for judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in to respond and make political or policy judgements. The following are some of the reasons for the active emergence of Judicial Activism:

• Constitutional Mandate: The Constitution of India assigns a crucial role to the judiciary in upholding the Constitution and protecting fundamental rights. This mandate has given the judiciary the power to intervene in cases where the executive and legislative branches of the government are seen as failing in their duties.
• Failure of Other Branches of Government: The judiciary’s active role is also a response to the perceived failure of the executive and legislative branches of government in addressing social, economic, and political issues. This failure has led to the judiciary’s increased intervention to ensure that the government acts in accordance with the Constitution.
• Public Interest Litigation: The concept of public interest litigation (PIL) has played a significant role in the rise of judicial activism in India. PIL allows any person or group to file a case on behalf of a larger public interest. This has allowed the judiciary to take up issues that may not have been addressed by the government or political parties.
• Progressive Interpretation of Law: The Indian judiciary has been recognized for its progressive interpretation of the law. This has been evident in cases involving the right to education, right to privacy, and LGBTQ rights. The judiciary’s progressive interpretation of the law has played a crucial role in expanding the scope of fundamental rights.
• Judicial Independence: The Indian judiciary is independent of the executive and legislative branches of government. This has given the judiciary the power to intervene in cases without fear of reprisal from the government or other influential groups.

Political Scientist Subhash Kashyap  opines that besides the above-mentioned factors, there are some other situations that lead to judicial activism. These are:

• When the government is very weak and unstable in case of a hung Parliament,  the third organ Judiciary plays a proactive role to safeguard democratic values. 
• When the governments fail to protect ideas and aspirations of the constitutional values.
• When the party in power misuses and abuses the power for ulterior motives. The emergency period during 1970’s is seen as the major manifestation of such a motive.
• The court may on its own try to expand its jurisdiction and confer on itself more functions and powers.

Manifestation of Judicial Activism in India

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

PIL is a powerful instrument devised by the Judiciary to reach out directly to the public. This tool takes cognizance of issues faced by society in general through litigation as well as through the Suo motu actions of courts. A postal letter or even a postcard addressed to the court is admissible for the purpose of initiating prerogative writs for the purpose of PIL. The PIL allows the supreme court to take up the problems and challenges faced by the society in general and weaker sections in particular. Such interventions of the SC are often seen as ‘activism’ by the constitutional experts. 

Judicial Review in India

The judiciary derives the power of judicial review primarily from article 13, article 32, and article 226. The provisions under article 32 and 226 gives power to the higher judiciary to examine the constitutionality of any law which is allegedly violative of the fundamental rights. There are no clear cut boundaries insofar as the power of judicial review is concerned. The power of judicial review can be easily transformed into judicial activism once the higher judiciary goes into the reasonableness of the legislation or executive actions. 

Judicial Activism Through Constitutional Interpretation

In the Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India Case (1978), Judicial Activism has ensured that the scope of Article 21 is not narrow and restricted. It has been widened by several landmark judgements. Some of the inferred rights under Article 21 include- Right to Privacy, Right to go abroad, Right to shelter, Right to social justice and economic empowerment, Right to health and medical aid etc. Though these rights are not directly mentioned in the constitution, the Supreme court being the final interpreter of the constitution took upon itself to give broader meaning to the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. Such interpretations further limit the authority of the executive and are seen as manifestations of ‘judicial activism’.

Role of International Conventions in Judicial Activism

The Supreme court has referred to International Law in many of its judgements. For example, the Supreme court frequently underlined the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948  which requires India’s internal legislation to comply with international commitments. Furthermore, in the era of climate change, the SC has taken a proactive approach to quash the administrative or legislative actions which go against the principles of sustainable development.