Q.) “Judicial activism is a recent phenomenon in the Indian governance.” comment and bring out the main arguments in favor and against the judicial activism.

Ans– From 1980 onward today path Breaking the trend to extend socio-economic injustice to the citizens by using our philosophy called judicial activism.

The philosophy of judicial activism quotes to play an active role to provide justice in case of Civic dilemma where legislative and executive vacuum is created. example– Water set Vishakha guideline.

Constitutional provision for judicial activism– There is no direct mention of judicial activism for quotes by using article 142 to provide complete justice to its citizens gives judgments.

Examples of judicial activism–

1. Direction related to panning Diwali crackers.
2. Golaknath case related to fundamental rights.
3. Banning the use of liquid up to 500 meters of national and state highways.
4. Committee to direct and facilitate proper medical oxygen supply in a present covid-19 pandemic.
5. calling for Central Government to show their plan for vaccine policy.

Over the most recent two years, we have settled more than 10,000 cases and this development is developing quickly. Every fortnight a the group goes to where the least court is arranged, to achieve a settlement of debates.

We have likewise cultivated the advancement of social-activity gatherings. We began coordinating them, giving them help with the state of assets, for the state of attorneys, and under the support of my board of trustees, they began holding grounds for preparing social activists as paralegals so they might give medical aid in regulation in the provincial regions.

Ultimately, we fostered the procedure of public interest prosecution. This suit is of a marginally unexpected person in comparison to yours and to that end, a few law specialists in India like to call it social activity case. We felt that regardless of whether we had this multitude of legitimate guide workplaces the needy individuals wouldn’t be able to manage the cost of the courts for equity. In this manner, we looked for the available resources by which we can give admittance to equity for poor people and the oppressed portion of society.

Both this progressive philosophy has both the positive and negative arguments in political scholars. some of them can be discussed below–

Arguments in favor of judicial activism–

1. Judicial activism tries to fill gaps created by legislative enactment and executive orders.
2. It provides judges to use their creativity and innovative ideas for complete justice to citizens.
3. Fast justice because in many cases related struggle with majority or assembly not facilitate government to Instant implement measures. example– Restricting utilization of liquor up to 500 meters of national and state highways.
4. It extends the way of principle that morality and constitutional value could be protected.
5. Judiciary as a Guardian of the constitution plays its role very well but sometimes it is over activism food hamper the democracy and liberty in the following manner.
6. Being dynamic makes the legislature and executive duty-bound to perform their duty, else can interfere.
7. The Upper Judiciary being the “Court of records” acts as a mentor through its Orders and railings for the lower judiciary.

Besides all these merits the powers between the three organs of the government are well divided in the constitution however with the special power of judicial activism the division becomes a very delicate corner. the activism is often referred to as Judicial enrichment.

Demerits include–

1. Acting as an executive of Legislature was never mandated for Judiciary and thus becomes extra-constitutional.
2. Overactive also acts as an invitation for criticism which is unhealthy for the guardian of the constitution.
3. despite showing activism, Judiciary is itself lagging in its issues like pendency of cases, and lack of judges in various high courts.
4. judgment may be influenced by personal or selfish motives which can further harm the public at large. if a judge is free to make laws of their own choices not only it would go against the principle of separation of power but it could also encourage every judge to draft their laws. Thus, judicial discipline has to be observed to maintain a clear balance.