Abstract
Judicial activism has played a pivotal role in the transformation of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, especially in expanding fundamental rights and ensuring social justice. However, concerns over judicial overreachwhere the judiciary is seen to encroach upon the domains of the legislature and executivehave sparked debates over the legitimacy and limits of judicial power. This research critically analyses the dual nature of judicial interventions in India: as both transformative and intrusive. Drawing from landmark cases, empirical data, and comparative analysis with other jurisdictions, this paper evaluates the impact of judicial activism and overreach on the justice system and democratic governance in India. It concludes by identifying the need for institutional checks, transparency, and restraint to maintain the constitutional balance.
Keywords: Judicial Activism, Judicial Overreach, Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence, Fundamental Rights, etc.
IntroductionThe Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has emerged not just as an interpreter of the Constitution but also as a protector of public interest and constitutional morality. Over the years, the courts have taken an active role in addressing issues where the executive has failed to act decisively or the legislature has remained silent. This assertiveness, often termed as judicial activism, has led to significant developmentssuch as the expansion of fundamental rights, enforcement of environmental safeguards, protection of marginalized communities, and even electoral reforms.
Judicial activism has empowered citizens, especially those who are socially or economically disadvantaged, by giving them access to justice through mechanisms like Public Interest Litigations (PILs). It has also led to landmark judgments that have shaped modern Indian jurisprudence.
However, this increasing judicial involvement has not come without criticism. In certain instances, the judiciary has been accused of judicial overreachwhere it has stepped beyond its constitutional role by interfering in policy decisions, administrative matters, or even law-making, which traditionally fall within the domain of the executive or legislature. This raises serious concerns about the balance of power among the three organs of the state, and whether the judiciary is overstepping its mandate under the doctrine of separation of powers.
This research paper aims to critically analyse the evolving role of the judiciary in India, specifically focusing on the thin line between judicial activism (as a force for positive change) and judicial overreach (as a potential threat to constitutional balance). It will assess how these judicial interventions have influenced the justice delivery system, governance, and democratic accountability in India.