Abstract
This paper examines the dual facets of judicial creativity and judicial overreach within the Indian legal system. Judicial creativity refers to the innovative and proactive interpretation of laws by courts, often manifesting as judicial activism, which has been instrumental in safeguarding fundamental rights, addressing gaps in legislation, and advancing social justice. Through landmark decisions, such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,[1]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the judiciary has shaped the evolution of Indian jurisprudence, demonstrating its capacity to respond to changing societal needs.
However, judicial overreach occurs when courts extend their authority beyond constitutional boundaries, potentially encroaching on legislative and executive functions. Such overreach can disrupt the delicate balance of powers, create policy uncertainty, and raise questions about democratic accountability. By critically analysing significant case law, scholarly opinions, and constitutional provisions, this paper assesses the benefits and limitations of judicial activism. It argues that while judicial creativity has been essential for promoting justice and protecting rights, unchecked overreach can pose challenges to the integrity and functioning of the Indian justice system.
Keywords: Judicial Activism, Judicial Creativity, Judicial Overreach, Separation of Powers, Indian Jurisprudence, Fundamental Rights, Constitutional Law, Social Justice.
- Introduction
Judicial creativity refers to the innovative and proactive approach adopted by courts in interpreting laws to address contemporary social, economic, and political challenges. It often manifests through judicial activism, where courts go beyond mere interpretation to shape legal norms, protect fundamental rights, and fill legislative gaps.[2] This creativity has enabled the judiciary in India to respond effectively to emerging societal needs, ensuring that the law remains dynamic and relevant in a rapidly changing environment. On the other hand, judicial overreach occurs when courts exceed their constitutional mandate and intervene in matters that fall within the domain of the legislature or executive.[3] Such overreach can disrupt the balance of powers, create uncertainty in governance, and raise questions about democratic accountability. Studying the interplay between judicial creativity and overreach is particularly important in the Indian context because the country’s jurisprudence has evolved significantly through judicial interpretation.[4] Courts have played a pivotal role in safeguarding constitutional principles, promoting social justice, and enforcing fundamental rights. However, the fine line between necessary judicial intervention and excessive judicial interference requires careful examination, as it has profound implications for the functioning and credibility of the Indian justice system.
[1]Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
[2]D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, 23rd edn, LexisNexis, 2020, p. 145.
[3]H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 4th edn, Universal Law Publishing, 2015, p. 785.
[4]M.P. Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, 15th edn, Eastern Book Company, 2019, p. 632.