Explanation of the First Page:

Abstract

 Purpose of the Study: This study examines the concept of judicial activism in India,
emphasizing its evolution and role within the judicial system. It explores how the
judiciary uses the Constitution and notable judgments to practice activism.
 Focus Areas:
o Active judicial activism through tools like Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
o Political and legislative implications of judicial activism.
o Balancing benefits to the public against risks of judicial overreach.
 Future Prospects: The study provides recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness
of judicial activism while maintaining its core purpose.
 Methodology: The research is grounded in secondary sources like books, articles, and
observations of judicial practices.

Keywords

 Judicial Activism, Public Interest Litigation, Judicial Overreach, Judicial Restraint,

Separation of Powers, Judicial Activism in India.

I. Introduction

 Indian Constitution: Known as the longest written Constitution, it addresses

contemporary and future challenges.
 Sovereignty: Recognizes the people as the ultimate sovereign authority in India.
 Separation of Powers: Defines the roles and functions of the Legislature, Executive, and
Judiciary.
 Judiciary’s Role:
o The judiciary has a unified structure, with the Supreme Court at the apex.
o Acts as the guardian of the Constitution and protector of citizens' rights.
o High courts share responsibility in safeguarding rights and liberties.

Explanation of the Second Page:

Role of the Judiciary in Judicial Activism

 Judicial Activism's Evolution:

o Empowers the judiciary to take necessary actions, even when it means deviating
from traditional practices or interfering with the functions of the legislature and
executive.
o This authority grants the judiciary the power to oversee and potentially overrule
the other two branches in specific instances.
 o Judicial activism has increased public trust in the judiciary, as people often look
to it for justice when other state organs fail.
 Criticism:
o The judiciary’s transgression into the domains of the other branches has sparked
debates over constitutional boundaries and potential overreach.

(A) Research Questions

The study aims to address the following key questions:

1. Definition and Global Perspective:

o What is judicial activism?
o How did judicial activism originate worldwide?
2. Methods and Evolution in India:
o What methods are employed for judicial activism?
o How has judicial activism evolved in India?
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
o What is PIL, and how has it gained prominence in India?
4. Challenges and Limitations:
o What are the weaknesses (lacunæ) of judicial activism?
o What do the terms "judicial overreach" and "judicial restraint" mean?
5. Future Scope:
o How can judicial activism be exercised without compromising the Constitution or
judicial independence?

(B) Research Objectives

The study has the following objectives:

1. Understand the concept and origins of judicial activism.

2. Examine the impact of judicial activism, specifically through PIL, on Indian society.
3. Analyze the concepts of judicial overreach and judicial restraint.
4. Evaluate the success and challenges of judicial activism in India.
5. Develop recommendations for improving the regulation and implementation of judicial
activism to benefit citizens.

(C) Research Methodology

 Approach:
o Combines analytical and descriptive methods.
 o Draws data from secondary sources such as books, journals, and websites.
 Empirical Focus:
o Includes practical observations of how judicial activism functions within the
judicial system.

Please upload the next page for continued explanation.

Explanation of the Third Page:

II. Judicial Activism: The Concept

 Common Law System and Judiciary's Role:

o The Common Law system operates on an adversarial basis, focusing on
arguments and facts presented by counsels, with judges acting as neutral
evaluators.
o Judges are traditionally expected to remain detached and issue judgments based
solely on the presented cases.
o Any deviation by judges to ensure justice, beyond their defined role, triggers
discussions on "judicial activism," "judicial overreach," and "judicial restraint."
 Development of the Term:
o "Judicial Activism" is a term designed to explain judicial actions that precede its
formal definition.
o It has been described differently by legal scholars across various periods.

(A) The Earliest Uses of the Term Judicial Activism

1. Early Perspectives:
o In free democracies, judicial activism has always existed in some form.
o However, it was criticized by early jurists for judges overstepping their domain.
o Jeremy Bentham opposed judicial activism, describing it as the judiciary
encroaching on legislative functions.
o Contrarily, John Austin supported a form of "judicial legislation."
2. Twentieth-Century Developments:
o The concept of judicial activism became more prominent during the early 1900s,
especially in the United States during the Lochner Era.
o Courts were criticized for invalidating state-enacted economic regulations to favor
capitalists, allegedly due to improper procedural justifications.
3. Formal Introduction:
o Although the concept was debated for years, the term "Judicial Activism" was
first formally mentioned in 1947 in a magazine article.

Explanation of the Fourth Page:

(A) The Earliest Uses of the Term Judicial Activism (Continued)

1. First Formal Use:

o Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. first used the term "Judicial Activism" in an
article in the Fortune magazine.
o He categorized American Supreme Court judges into:
 Judicial Activists
 Champions of Self-Restraint
 Judges positioned between the two.
2. First Judicial Usage:
o The term was first applied in court by Judge Joseph C. Hutcheson in the case of
Theriot v. Mercer (1959).
o He criticized judicial activism, particularly dissent judgments, for deviating from
the norm.
3. Evolution in Connotation:
o By the mid-1950s, "Judicial Activism" came to be seen by some as judicial
overreach or encroachment.
o The term's contentious nature, both then and now, highlights its dual perception as
both a tool for justice and a challenge to institutional boundaries.

(B) Definitions of Judicial Activism

1. Distinction from Regular Judicial Functions:

o Judicial Activism differs from routine judicial tasks such as settling disputes,
penalizing crimes, and interpreting laws.
o It begins when courts transcend their traditional roles, actively intervening in
legislative or executive domains to protect citizens' rights.
2. Key Definitions:
o Black’s Law Dictionary: Defines Judicial Activism as a judicial decision-making
philosophy where judges let personal views on public policy influence decisions.
o Activism arises when the judiciary perceives legislative or executive inaction and
intervenes to compensate for governance gaps.
3. Characteristics:
o Includes deviations from precedent or self-interpretations of earlier judgments.
o Represents proactive judiciary efforts for societal betterment and institutional
functionality.
o As noted by S.P. Sathe, an activist court reinterprets provisions to adapt to
changing socio-economic realities and expand individual rights.

Explanation of the Fifth Page:

(C) The Evolution of Judicial Activism

1. Origins in the United Kingdom:

 o Judicial activism began through judicial review under the unwritten British
Constitution.
o The flexibility of the unwritten constitution enabled courts to adapt to evolving
needs, laying the foundation for judicial activism during the Stuart era (1603–
1688).
2. Key Development: Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610):
o Justice Edward Coke established judicial review by declaring that any
parliamentary law contravening common law or reason could be voided by the
courts.
o This case was pivotal in affirming the judiciary’s ability to review and nullify
unconstitutional laws.
3. Further Advancement:
o Sir Henry Hobart (1615), succeeding Edward Coke, strengthened the theory of
judicial review.
4. Recognition in the USA: Marbury v. Madison (1803):
o The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated portions of the Judiciary Act of 1801 as
unconstitutional.
o It marked the first instance in the U.S. where legislation was overturned by the
judiciary.
o Judicial review became a cornerstone of the U.S. legal system and inspired other
democracies to adopt this principle.
5. Global Influence:
o The principle of judicial activism, enabled by judicial review, became essential
for maintaining an independent judiciary in democratic nations.

(D) Methods of Judicial Activism

The primary practices of judicial activism globally include:

1. Judicial Review:
o Courts assess the constitutionality of laws and governmental actions.
2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
o Common in India, PIL allows the judiciary to address collective public concerns.
3. Judicial Legislation:
o Courts fill legislative gaps or create new legal interpretations when necessary.
4. Creative Interpretation and Drafting:
o Judges creatively reinterpret laws to address contemporary challenges and ensure
justice.

Explanation of the Sixth Page:

(E) Significance of Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is essential in addressing the gaps within a nation’s established legal and
governance systems. Its significance includes:

1. Oversight of State Institutions:

o Checks the actions or inactions of state institutions to ensure accountability.
2. Addressing New Issues:
o Tackles recent or emerging issues where no legislative framework exists.
3. Combating Corruption:
o Acts against corruption, inefficiency, and apathy in the executive wing.
4. Protecting Constitutional Values:
o Invalidates unconstitutional laws passed by parliamentary majorities that
undermine constitutional principles.
o Prevents majoritarianism from altering the core values of the nation.
5. Maintaining Balance:
o Ensures that none of the three state organs—legislature, executive, or judiciary—
become overly authoritative.

III. Judicial Activism in India

1. Constitutional Framework:
o India has a parliamentary system with distinct powers for the legislature,
executive, and judiciary.
o Unlike some countries, the Constitution is supreme, not the parliament.
o This equality of the three organs ensures that none has dominance over the others.
2. Role of Judiciary:
o The Supreme Court and High Courts are the guardians of citizens' rights and
liberties.
o While powers are clearly defined, the judiciary occasionally encroaches on
others’ domains to uphold its responsibilities.
3. Increased Judicial Activism:
o The judiciary’s expanding role has caused concerns about judicial overreach,
particularly from the executive and legislature.
o However, judicial activism has maintained the sanctity of the courts, ensuring
justice and liberty are upheld.

(A) Evolution of Judicial Activism in India

1. Post-Independence Judiciary:
o Initially, courts in India adhered strictly to procedural and technocratic functions.
o Early judicial approaches lacked creativity and innovation in delivering justice.
2. Focus on Elementary Justice:
 o Early judges emphasized following procedures rather than finding innovative
solutions to ensure justice.

Explanation of the Seventh Page:

Instances of Judicial Activism in India

1. Early Activism in British and Post-Independent India:

o J. Sayed Mahmood’s Dissent:
 In 1893, J. Sayed Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court criticized a rule
requiring appellants to pay for translating and printing records into
English.
 This was a form of judicial activism aimed at protecting undertrial
prisoners who were disadvantaged by the rule.
 His dissent didn’t align with the English judges on the bench, leading to
his early retirement.

2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):

o Judicial Review Concept Established:
 The Supreme Court introduced judicial review, emphasizing the power of
courts to strike down laws violating fundamental rights.
o Article 13(2):
 Prohibited the state from enacting laws that contravened fundamental
rights, marking a significant judicial intervention.

3. Judiciary’s Role Post-Emergency:

o The Emergency period underscored the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing legislative
and executive actions to uphold constitutional values.
o Judicial review emerged as a vital check during this era.

4. Key Cases Demonstrating Judicial Activism:

o Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965):
 Dissenting opinions raised concerns about the legislature potentially
overriding citizens’ fundamental rights.
 The judiciary was viewed as a safeguard against such legislative
overreach.
o Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
 This landmark case established the basic structure doctrine.
 Justice J. H. R. Khanna highlighted that judicial review is integral to
preserving constitutional integrity.
 The ruling empowered courts to invalidate any statute that threatened the
Constitution’s basic structure.
o ADM Jabalpur v. S.K. Shukla (1976):
 Justice J. Khanna’s dissent was a notable example of judicial activism.
 He upheld citizens’ rights despite knowing it might cost him the position
of Chief Justice of India, which eventually happened.
 His dissent reinforced the judiciary’s role as a protector of rights and
established judicial activism as a significant concept in India.

Explanation of the Eighth Page:

Judicial Activism through Key Judgments

1. Minerva Mills v. Union of India:

o The Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine.
o It prevented the government from annulling the Kesavananda Bharati judgment,
thereby restraining Parliament from exercising unlimited powers to amend the
Constitution.
2. Justice P.N. Bhagwati’s Role:
o Recognized as the father of judicial activism in India.
o Through cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and
Khatri v. State of Bihar, he solidified judicial activism as a tool for delivering
justice.
o He emphasized the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure justice reaches all sections
of society.
3. Evolution of Judicial Activism in India (Phases):
o 1950-1970:
 Characterized by a classical judiciary that adhered strictly to existing legal
frameworks.
o 1970-2000:
 Marked the rise of judicial activism, with innovative judgments expanding
constitutional interpretations.
o 2000–Present:
 Judicial activism has continued to expand, addressing a wide range of
societal issues.
 However, concerns about judicial overreach have also surfaced during this
period.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

1. Emergence of PIL:
o Introduced during the Emergency to ensure justice for marginalized and deprived
sections of society.
 o Aimed to make justice accessible to the masses, especially those denied
fundamental rights.
2. Key Figures:
o Justice J.V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati were instrumental in
advancing the PIL mechanism.
3. Role of PIL:
o Recognized the judiciary as a social auditor.
o Justice Bhagwati emphasized that courts must innovate to address issues of justice
denial.
o Highlighted how the economically and socially underprivileged faced barriers in
accessing justice, often intimidated by the judicial process.
4. Fundamental Rights:
o It was established that if fundamental rights are infringed, any person could
approach the apex court.
o This view expanded the access to justice and reduced procedural barriers for
public grievances.

Explanation of the Ninth Page:

Expansion of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

1. Article 32 and PIL Development:

o Article 32 of the Indian Constitution empowers citizens to approach the Supreme
Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
o The concept of PIL began to take shape with the 1976 case of Maharaj Ji Singh
v. State of UP, where the court emphasized that community welfare could not be
dismissed for lack of legal standing.
2. Epistolary Jurisdiction:
o Introduced in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India (1981).
o This allowed citizens to approach the judiciary through letters, making justice
accessible even for those unable to afford formal litigation processes.
3. SP Gupta v. Union of India:
o The court recognized the plight of disadvantaged citizens, affirming that
individuals with sufficient interest and genuine intent could approach the court on
behalf of others.
o It ruled that procedural formalities should not impede justice and letters could be
treated as writ petitions.
4. Judicial Role in Expanding PIL:
o Judges who promoted PIL are regarded as champions of citizens' rights and pillars
of judicial activism in India.
o PIL evolved into a robust mechanism to address systemic issues spanning all
branches of governance.

Prominent PIL Judgments

 1. Scope of PILs:
o PILs have been pivotal in addressing human rights violations, corruption, labor
rights, and environmental concerns.
o They highlight the proactive stance of Indian courts in ensuring societal welfare.
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979):
o A landmark PIL filed after media reports exposed appalling conditions of
undertrial prisoners in Bihar.
o It revealed that many prisoners had been incarcerated for periods exceeding the
maximum punishment for their alleged crimes.
o Highlighted the systemic inefficiencies of an overburdened judiciary.

Explanation of the Tenth Page:

Prominent PIL Judgments (Continued)

1. Hussainara Khatoon Case:

o Highlighted the issue of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails due to the
inability to afford bail.
o Justice Bhagwati and other judges ordered their release on personal bonds if they
couldn’t pay bail, recognizing speedy trial as a fundamental right.
o The court also declared free legal aid as an integral part of the right to life and
personal liberty, addressing systemic judicial inefficiencies.
2. Fake Encounters and Human Rights Violations:
o PILs have been instrumental in addressing fake encounter cases, brought forward
by human rights activists.
o In Chaitanya Kalbagh v. State of UP, the court mandated an investigation into a
fake encounter.
 The judiciary ensured accountability by prosecuting the officers involved.
 Established that violations of human rights would not be tolerated under
the pretense of instant justice.
3. Bonded Labor and Exploitation:
o Bonded labor persisted despite the Bonded Labor (Abolition) Act, 1976, due to
systemic apathy.
o In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the court:
 Ordered a judicial inquiry to address bonded laborers’ plight.
 Ensured their rehabilitation and compensation.
o Highlighted the judiciary's role in compensating for ineffective laws and corrupt
bureaucracies.
4. Environmental Negligence:
o Environmental degradation was identified as a neglected issue by the legislature
and bureaucracy.
o The judiciary stepped in to address pollution and safeguard the environment,
compensating for public and institutional apathy.

Explanation of the Eleventh Page:

Judicial Activism and Environmental Protection

1. Role of MC Mehta in PILs:

o MC Mehta filed several significant PILs addressing environmental degradation.
o His activism led to:
 Closure of tanneries polluting the Ganges.
 Judicial intervention in the protection of the Taj Mahal against yellowing
caused by industrial pollution.
o The court's response included:
 Ordering inquiries based on expert commission recommendations.
 Enforcing strict compliance with pollution control norms.
 Shutting down industries contributing to environmental degradation.
2. Judicial Vigilance in Pollution Cases:
o Courts have proactively addressed pollution issues, ensuring preemptive
measures.
o Their approach emphasizes protecting the environment and deterring negligence
or malpractice.
o Judicial activism has proven instrumental in enhancing institutional efficiency and
acting as a safeguard against state corruption or incompetence.

(C) Addressing Issues Overlooked by Judicial Activism

1. Critique of Judicial Activism:

o Judicial activism is lauded for improving the conditions of marginalized sections
of society, yet it has limitations.
o Some issues include:
 A focus on symptoms rather than root causes, as highlighted by
Upendra Baxi.
 For instance:
 Small tanneries were closed for health risks, but larger, impactful
projects like mega irrigation and nuclear power were not
addressed.
2. Vishaka Case and Sexual Harassment:
o The Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case laid essential guidelines to combat
sexual harassment.
o Despite this, the judiciary failed to address issues like victim protection
comprehensively.
3. Lack of Victim Involvement:
o One significant issue with judicial activism is the absence of inputs from victims.
o This limits the formulation of effective and practical solutions.
o Detached judgments often fail to empower or liberate the affected individuals.

Explanation of the Twelfth Page:

Critique of PIL and Judicial Activism

 1. Varying Judicial Conduct:
o Supreme Court and High Courts exhibit inconsistency depending on the
petitioner.
o Established and well-structured organizations are often preferred over solo
organizations or individuals filing PILs.
o This selective approach could discourage individuals or smaller groups genuinely
trying to address rights violations.
2. Challenges with Frivolous PILs:
o The courts’ selective approach has been shaped by the prevalence of frivolous
PILs over time.
o However, this should not result in a prejudiced attitude against individuals or
smaller groups seeking justice.
3. Corruption in the Judiciary:
o Judiciary has proactively addressed corruption in the executive and legislative
branches.
o However, there is reluctance in addressing corruption or misconduct within the
judiciary itself.
o The lack of specific legislation and the impracticality of impeachment contribute
to this gap.
o Judicial activism should include self-regulation to enhance public trust and
confidence.

IV. Judicial Activism to Judicial Overreach and Restraint

1. Judicial Populism Critique:

o Judicial activism has been criticized for evolving into judicial populism.
o The judiciary, under the guise of activism, often encroaches upon the domains of
other state organs.
o This challenges the separation of powers, a fundamental constitutional principle.
2. Separation of Powers:
o The separation of powers ensures that no single branch consolidates excessive
power.
o In democratic systems, the judiciary is tasked with checking the misuse of
executive and legislative authority.
o Judicial activism, when exceeding its limits, undermines this delicate balance.

Explanation of the Twelfth Page:

Critique of PIL and Judicial Activism

1. Varying Judicial Conduct:

o Supreme Court and High Courts exhibit inconsistency depending on the
petitioner.
 o Established and well-structured organizations are often preferred over solo
organizations or individuals filing PILs.
o This selective approach could discourage individuals or smaller groups genuinely
trying to address rights violations.
2. Challenges with Frivolous PILs:
o The courts’ selective approach has been shaped by the prevalence of frivolous
PILs over time.
o However, this should not result in a prejudiced attitude against individuals or
smaller groups seeking justice.
3. Corruption in the Judiciary:
o Judiciary has proactively addressed corruption in the executive and legislative
branches.
o However, there is reluctance in addressing corruption or misconduct within the
judiciary itself.
o The lack of specific legislation and the impracticality of impeachment contribute
to this gap.
o Judicial activism should include self-regulation to enhance public trust and
confidence.

IV. Judicial Activism to Judicial Overreach and Restraint

1. Judicial Populism Critique:

o Judicial activism has been criticized for evolving into judicial populism.
o The judiciary, under the guise of activism, often encroaches upon the domains of
other state organs.
o This challenges the separation of powers, a fundamental constitutional principle.
2. Separation of Powers:
o The separation of powers ensures that no single branch consolidates excessive
power.
o In democratic systems, the judiciary is tasked with checking the misuse of
executive and legislative authority.
o Judicial activism, when exceeding its limits, undermines this delicate balance.

Explanation of the Fourteenth Page:

Judicial Overreach

1. Definition:
o Judicial overreach occurs when courts extend their authority beyond reasonable
limits, often interfering arbitrarily and excessively in the domains of the
legislature and the executive.
o It is distinguished from judicial activism by its lack of bona fide intent and
negative impact on democratic institutions.
2. Impact:
 o Judicial overreach undermines the principle of separation of powers, essential for
a healthy democracy.
o It disturbs institutional balance, creating friction between the judiciary and other
state organs.
3. Observations by Justice J.S. Verma:
o Judicial activism should be confined to legitimate judicial review.
o It should avoid extremes of "judicial ad hocism" or "judicial tyranny."
4. Example of Overreach:
o The Supreme Court's annulment of the National Judicial Appointments
Commission (NJAC) Act was criticized as overreach. The judiciary invalidated a
law passed through proper legislative procedures, causing friction with
Parliament.
5. Constitutional Principles Breached:
o Judicial overreach violates constitutional boundaries and the rule of law, which
states that law, not judges, should be supreme.
o It erodes democratic accountability, as courts are not answerable for policy
decisions or governance.
6. Baker v. Carr (U.S. Supreme Court):
o The judgment emphasized that judicial intervention must have a reasonable cause.
o The absence of other legal solutions alone does not justify judicial overreach, as it
risks undermining the rule of law.

Explanation of the Fifteenth Page:

Judicial Restraint

1. Definition:
o Judicial restraint serves as a counterbalance to judicial overreach and judicial
activism.
o It requires judges to exercise self-control in their decisions, respecting the limits
of judicial authority.
2. Purpose:
o Judicial restraint ensures that the judiciary does not encroach upon the governance
and legislative functions of the state.
o It seeks to strike a balance between judicial intervention and non-interference to
maintain the independence and credibility of the judiciary.
3. Judicial Perspective:
o Justices Markandey Katju and A.K. Mathur emphasized that judicial restraint
prevents excessive intrusion into legislative and executive domains.
o They cautioned that overstepping by the judiciary could provoke reactions such as
legislative measures curbing judicial independence.
4. Implications of Restraint:
o Judicial restraint prevents arguments that the judiciary is overloaded with pending
cases and cannot focus on governance.
o The court recognizes that issues like policy decisions are better suited for
legislative and executive resolution.
 5. Key Judgments:
o S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India:
 The court held that cases involving significant political interest should not
be subject to judicial review, emphasizing judicial non-interference.
o Almitra H. Patel vs. Union of India:
 The Supreme Court declined to instruct the Delhi Municipal Corporation
on cleaning methods, stressing that such decisions are administrative
responsibilities, not judicial ones.
6. Role of Courts:
o The judiciary must refrain from interfering in governance and policy matters as it
risks questioning the political wisdom of elected representatives.
o Judicial accountability does not extend to policy creation but remains confined to
the correction of errors or enforcement of legal compliance.

Please upload the next page for further explanations.

Explanation of the Sixteenth Page:

V. Conclusion

1. Judicial Activism as a Controversial Aspect:

o Judicial activism has been a highly debated subject in the judiciary, primarily
concerning its justification and scope.
o Its evolution reflects judicial creativity and the legal expertise of India’s
prominent judges.
2. Role in Social Correction:
o Judicial activism serves as a mechanism for addressing societal and systemic
issues that are considered grossly wrong.
o It empowers courts to bring about societal changes and uplift the condition of
citizens.
3. Criticism and Separation of Powers:
o Critics argue that judicial activism breaches the principle of separation of powers,
potentially conflicting with the Constitution.
o While judicial activism wasn’t explicitly debated in the Constituent Assembly, it
aligns with the spirit of the Constitution by addressing state inaction.
4. Compensating for State Inaction:
o Judicial activism compensates for lapses by the executive and legislative
branches, ensuring accountability and democratic governance.
o It reflects democratic ideals and protects fundamental rights, even if it doesn’t
always yield immediate or enforceable outcomes.
5. Limitations of the Judiciary’s Mandate:
o Courts face resource constraints and lack the authority to implement laws
effectively.
o Activism is seen as a tool to guide public opinion and enforce accountability.
6. Contribution to Justice:
 o Judicial activism plays a critical role in protecting marginalized groups and
ensuring their rights are upheld.
o It has often defended citizens against state excesses, promoting a balance of
power.
7. Concerns of Overreach:
o Despite its merits, judicial activism has occasionally resulted in overreach,
blurring the lines between activism and governance.
o Courts must avoid encroaching on the functions of the legislature and executive.
8. Call for Judicial Responsibility:
o Judges must wield their discretionary power with caution, recognizing that
governance and policymaking rest primarily with Parliament and the executive.
o Judicial activism cannot replace the role of governance, emphasizing the
importance of maintaining the separation of powers.

This marks the conclusion of the paper. Let me know if you need a summary or further insights
from this document!

Explanation of the Final Page:

1. Judiciary as the Backbone of Democracy:

o A strong judiciary is fundamental to a robust democracy.
o Judicial activism represents the extraordinary power and responsibility courts take
upon themselves to uphold justice.
2. Achievements of Judicial Activism:
o Judicial activism has addressed critical issues such as:
 Bonded labor.
 Conditions of undertrials in prisons.
 Women's subjugation.
 LGBTQ+ rights.
 Environmental protection.
 Institutional inaction.
o These efforts validate the concept of judicial activism as an essential part of
modern judicial systems.
3. Caution in Application:
o While the value of judicial activism is unquestionable, its application requires
prudence.
o Judges must practice self-discipline and ensure judicial activism is employed for
limited, well-justified purposes.
o Unnecessary interference with the legislature or executive must be avoided to
maintain the balance of power.
4. Pinnacle of Judicial Creativity:
o Judicial activism represents the height of judicial creativity and innovation.
o It is a delicate tool that requires thoughtful use to avoid compromising the sanctity
of the judicial system.
5. Conclusion:
 o Judicial activism should be wielded carefully to address societal injustices without
undermining the principles of governance.
o The judiciary’s role is to balance creativity with restraint, ensuring that the
integrity of the legal and political system remains intact.

This concludes the paper. Let me know if you'd like a full summary of this paper or further
insights!