Abstract
The doctrine of separation of powers is a cornerstone of democratic governance, demarcating the responsibilities of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. However, the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation in India has led to the emergence of two critical and contrasting judicial philosophies: judicial activism and judicial restraint. This research explores the conceptual underpinnings and practical manifestations of both doctrines, particularly in light of legislative provisions and constitutional mandates.
Judicial activism, often characterized by proactive judicial interventions in matters of public interest and policy voids, has played a transformative role in promoting social justice, environmental protection, and human rights. On the other hand, judicial restraint urges caution, emphasizing respect for the legislative domain and the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
This paper critically examines landmark judgments, statutory frameworks, and constitutional provisions such as Articles 32, 226, and 142 to analyze how courts navigate the tension between these two approaches. It also evaluates the legitimacy and limits of judicial intervention in a parliamentary democracy, considering the implications for legislative supremacy and democratic accountability.
The study concludes by emphasizing the need for a balanced judicial approach that respects the doctrine of separation of powers while ensuring justice and constitutional morality.
Keywords: Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, Separation of Powers, Constitutional Interpretation, Article 32, Article 226, Article 142, Public Interest Litigation, Legislative Supremacy, Rule of Law, Judicial Overreach, Parliamentary Democracy.
PIL
In contemporary times, there has been a growing significance of public interest or social interest litigation, which has garnered the interest of all stakeholders. The traditional legal principle of “Locus Standi,” which permits an individual whose rights have been violated to file a petition independently, was recently relaxed by the Supreme Court. The judiciary currently permits the initiation of public interest litigation by individuals referred to as “Public-Spirited Citizens” or “Public-Spirited” with the aim of safeguarding and upholding constitutional and legal entitlements.
Presently, any individual who is civic-minded has the ability to make a request to the court for a matter that benefits the general public (pertaining to public welfare or the public’s best interests) by submitting a petition to the appropriate governing bodies:
The Indian Constitution provides for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court under Article 32 and by High Courts under Article 226. Justice Krishna Iyer provided a list of justifications for the relaxation of the locus standi rule in a magistrate court under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[1] in the Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union case[2]. The exercise of governmental power to combat corruption may result in interference with other matters. The compatibility of liberal judicial review of administrative action with social justice is questionable.
The implementation of rigid standing rules is antithetical to the establishment of an effective administrative framework. Therefore, activism is a necessary component for achieving participatory public justice.
Consequently, it is imperative to afford an opportunity to a conscientious member of the community to file a petition with the court in the interest of the common welfare. Justice Bhagwati, a distinguished Supreme Court judge renowned for his pro-poor and activist stance, played a pivotal role in the landmark Judges Transfer Case, commonly referred to as S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India[3], by firmly establishing the legitimacy of public interest litigation. Subsequent to that, a considerable quantity of petitions pertaining to public interest litigation have been submitted.
[1] The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, Section 133 of 528
[2] Supra Note 13
[3] Supra Note 18