Abstract
Judicial activism and judicial restraint represent two fundamental approaches to judicial decision-making. While judicial activism involves courts taking an assertive role in interpreting and applying laws to advance social justice, judicial restraint emphasises adherence to the original intent of laws and deference to legislative and executive decisions. This article examines the evolution, fundamental principles, and landmark cases of these philosophies in the US Supreme Court and the Indian Supreme Court. It explores their impact on the separation of powers, democratic governance, and the rule of law while also analysing the role of judicial philosophy and ideological leanings in shaping judicial behaviour. Finally, the article highlights lessons for preserving judicial legitimacy and accountability in contemporary constitutional democracies.
Keywords: Judicial activism, judicial restraint, separation of powers, democratic governance, rule of law, US Supreme Court, Indian Supreme Court, constitutionalism, public interest litigation, fundamental structure doctrine.
Introduction
The judiciary serves as the cornerstone of constitutional governance, acting as a safeguard against governmental excesses and a protector of fundamental rights. However, the scope and manner of judicial intervention in legislative and executive domains have sparked ongoing debates.
Judicial activism enables courts to interpret constitutional principles dynamically, often stepping into policy realms to address systemic gaps or injustices. On the other hand, judicial restraint underscores the principle of separation of powers, where courts limit their role to interpretation rather than creation of law, respecting the prerogatives of the legislature and executive.
This article analyses judicial activism and restraint, focusing on the US Supreme Court and the Indian Supreme Court. It traces their historical development, assesses their role in landmark decisions, and evaluates their implications for constitutional governance.