The development of India's environmental jurisprudence has been greatly influenced by judicial activism, especially regarding conservation laws. Due to the legislative and executive branches' shortcomings in tackling environmental issues, the court has taken a more proactive stance. The Indian judiciary has elevated the right to a clean and healthy environment under Article 21 of the Constitution through a series of precedent-setting rulings. Public Interest Litigations (PILs), which have been made possible by this, have greatly aided in the implementation of environmental protection laws.

Principles like the polluter pays principle, the precautionary principle, and sustainable development have emerged as a result of the Supreme Court's involvement in interpreting constitutional provisions. In situations like the Ganga Pollution Case and the Oleum Gas Leak Case, where the judiciary was instrumental in upholding environmental standards, these judicial innovations have impacted policy-making. An other example of the judiciary's dedication to specialist environmental adjudication is the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Critics have also pointed up shortcomings in this advocacy. It is argued by some that the courts' excessive power occasionally tramples on the authority of the legislature and administration, undermining the separation of powers. The uniformity of court rulings has also raised questions, with some rulings perceived as having more symbolic value than really affecting significant environmental change. This strategy's long-term viability has also come under scrutiny in light of the recent fall in judicial activism within the NGT.

Ultimately, while judicial activism has played an important role in improving environmental protection in India, it is still debatable. The balance between judicial involvement and respect for the functions of other arms of government remains an important factor in the changing landscape of environmental law.

Introduction
In India, the judiciary plays a key role in assessing the constitutionality of laws and their interpretation, resolving disputes between the Centre, states, and among states, and protecting citizens' rights. The court is expected to deliver fair and impartial justice, which is essential for effective governance.

When the legislature passes laws that violate individuals' rights and security, and the administration fails to do its duties, such as law enforcement, the court is the only way out. To ensure justice for citizens, the judiciary is obligated to take over some of the executive's functions.

A free and unafraid court is the foundation of democracy in such a circumstance. As per the constitutional framework, the judiciary serves as a proactive agent that guarantees justice for every individual. In terms of governmental control and influence, the Indian judiciary has been sincere and impartial in carrying out its responsibilities. Nonetheless, people's expectations of the courts have increased due to India's shifting socioeconomic and political circumstances

Unlike some countries, India has a single, unified legal system with the Supreme Court as the highest authority. The Supreme Court resolves disputes between the federal government and states, or among states, acting as an impartial and independent body. As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, it reviews the legality of constitutional amendments and laws passed by Parliament, while also safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights.

According to G. Austin,[1] the Supreme Court has been called upon to safeguard civil and minority rights and play the role of 'guardian of the social revolution'. It is the interpreter of the law of the land and the highest court of appeal in both civil and criminal matters. An independent judiciary is essential for ensuring human rights and protection of democracy.

According to S.C. Kashyap,[2] noted constitutional expert, "In a representative democracy, administration of justice assumes special significance in view of the rights of individuals which need protection against executive or legislative interference. An independent and supreme judiciary is also an essential requisite of a federal polity when there is a constitutional division of powers between the federal government and governments of the constitutional units and a functional division of powers between the executive, legislature and the judiciary."

It has increased the significance of judiciary in the process of governance. Being an activist, judiciary has delivered historic verdicts relating to various spheres of life, environment, human rights, child labor etc. As it is a new phenomenon, therefore, it has generated and initiated a debate in the Indian polity. This concept is being criticized and appreciated in the Indian society, as there are defenders and opponents of judicial activism. It constitutes two schools of thought, one in favor of judicial activism and the other against it. Besides, one thing is certain that judicial activism has improved the working of Indian politics. The social, economic and political justice can be achieved if every instrumentality under the Constitution functions as per the mandate of the Constitution.[3]

Meaning Of Judicial Activism:

• It is necessary to make clear that judicial activism does not refer to the act of resolving conflicts in line with the Constitution or applicable laws while discussing the definition of the term. It is the court's adoption of a proactive stance. The term "judicial activism" describes the state in which the judiciary departs from its customary purview and actively engages in the formulation of laws and policies aimed at safeguarding citizens' rights and liberties a function that would otherwise fall under the purview of the legislative and executive branches. A mindset is behind judicial activism. It started because the executive and legislative branches were unresponsive and uninterested. It consists solely of carrying out judicial tasks. The bridge that connects the normative and positive components of the law is creativity.
   
• Although the phrase "judicial activism" is not found in the Indian Constitution, it has become a crucial aspect of how the court operates in the modern world. It often refers to the judiciary's role in actively advancing justice, as represented by that function. The aim of the jurist is to investigate how the court, in general, and public agencies in particular, actively participate in ensuring justice for society in the present context. It is commonly believed that a judge who takes a daring decision is engaging in judicial activism.[4]
   
• The Indian Constitution's provisions pertaining to Amendment, Judicial Review, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and the importance of Social Action Litigation (SAL) in relation to the various spheres of polity and society must be examined to fully understand what judicial activism means. The progressive movement from personal injury standing to pro bono public-that is, civic-minded people, groups, and organizations advocating on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged who were unable to access justice due to financial limitations, illiteracy, or ignorance is associated with judicial activism.[5]
   

History Of Evolution:

The Indian Supreme Court was initially technocratic in its approach, but as a result of its liberal legal interpretation, it progressively gained authority and stature. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[6] established the precedent for judicial review, arguing that the right to do so was inherent in the written constitution. Article 13 states that the government cannot enact laws that restrict or eliminate basic rights. The Supreme Court expressed its opinion, citing this article:

The inclusion of Article 13(1) and 13(2) in the Constitution appears to be a matter of abundant caution. Even in their absence, if any of the Fundamental Rights are infringed by any legislative enactment, the Court has always the power to declare the enactment to the extent that it transgresses the limits, invalid.

Put another way, the court assumed responsibility for both the judicial examination of legislative actions and the judicial interpretation of the Constitution. Judicial activism is a natural byproduct of judicial review and can be caused by a number of things. The judiciary must become more proactive in interpreting the laws as the political landscape becomes more complex and new challenges arise. In situations where laws are lacking (such as foreign adoptions of children, cybercrimes, etc.), the court must expand the application of existing laws to decide cases that come before it. As stated by S.P. Sathe:[7]

There are two models of judicial review. One is a technocratic model in which Judges act merely as technocrats and hold a law invalid if it is ultra vires the powers of the legislature. In the second model, a court interprets the provisions of a constitution liberally and in the light of the spirit underlying it keeps the Constitution abreast of the times through dynamic interpretation.

There are benefits and drawbacks to judicial activism. It is constructive when it works to improve the equity of power dynamics between various societal groups. It is detrimental, though, if it is status quo and conservative. 'Progressive' and 'reactionary' are phrases used by Upendra Baxi[8]. He claims that "a large portion of the pro-emergency activism typified by S.K. Shukla[9] and the activism of the Nehruvian era on issues of land reform and right to property manifests reactionary judicial activism." The progressive judicial movement began with Golaknath[10] and Kesavananda[11] and ended with a completely new kind of social action activism.

In the words of Sathe1", "Judicial activism acts to breach separation of powers, which in turn upsets transactional efficiency and raises social costs. If the executive or the legislature has become dysfunctional, rotten boroughs of obsolete executives and unrepresentative legislatures, the solution is not in expanding judicial enterprise but in restructuring the dysfunctional institutions."

Constitutional Background:

The framework of the judiciary in independent India was greatly influenced by the discussions on judicial activism and judicial review that took place within the Indian Constituent Assembly. The greater dispute over the distribution of authority among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches included these exchanges. The main ideas raised during the Constituent Assembly deliberations are outlined below:[12]

1. Judicial Activism:
   • Implicit Debate: During the debates, the word "judicial activism" as it is currently understood was not mentioned specifically. Nonetheless, there was discussion of the underlying worries over the judiciary perhaps becoming more involved in governance.
   • Balance of Power: Representatives such as H.V. Kamath and T.T. Krishnamachari stressed the importance of maintaining a balance of power, cautioning against the judiciary growing too strong and thus compromising the authority of Parliament. The discussions emphasized the significance of upholding a distinct division of powers and making sure the court had sufficient power to serve as a check on the other branches.
      
2. Judicial Review:
   • Support for Judicial Review: Several of the Constituent Assembly members were in favor of the idea of judicial review, including Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, K.M. Munshi, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. They maintained that judicial review was necessary to safeguard citizens' fundamental rights and make sure that laws enacted by the legislature complied with the Constitution.
   • Fears of Judicial Overreach: A few participants voiced worries that the process of judicial review could result in a situation where judges intrude into the authority of the legislative or the executive branch. It was feared that an overreactive judiciary would invalidate legislation passed by the representatives of the people, thus undermining democracy.
      
3. The Role of the Judiciary and Fundamental Rights:
   • Guardian of Fundamental Rights: Part III of the Constitution establishes the court as the guardian of fundamental rights. The judiciary's role in defending these rights was a frequent topic of discussion throughout assembly deliberations, with judicial review being emphasized as a crucial tool for defending individual liberty against the state's capricious actions.
   • Article 32: Because it allows citizens to petition the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is credited with dubbing Article 32 the "heart and soul" of the Constitution. This clause emphasized the judiciary's crucial function in guaranteeing the preservation of people' rights.
      
4. Independence of the Judiciary:
   • Independence as a Core Value: The Constituent Assembly unanimously agreed that an independent court, unaffected by the legislative or executive branches, should be established. This was deemed necessary to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law.
   • Debates on Appointments and Tenure: To make sure that the judiciary could operate independently of the other parts of government without undue influence, there were in-depth deliberations on the appointment procedure, the tenure of judges, and the removal procedure.
      
5. Constitutional Amendments and the Role of the Court in Constitutional Interpretation:
   • The job of interpreting the Constitution fell to the court as well. Concerns about the judiciary's approach to amending the Constitution and the possibility of disagreements with Parliament about constitutional interpretation were evident in the debates.
   • The late 1970s saw the judiciary take on an activist role that expanded the definition of social and economic justice. In terms of countering the legislative indifference towards the growth of the fundamental right to free legal aid, the judiciary acted without hesitation. It is important to note that Justice Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer have made significant contributions toward the accomplishment of the stated goal.

Contribution of justice Krishna Iyer:

In Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, [13] the court interpreted Article 21's provision of "procedure established by law" to provide a right to free legal aid. According to Justice Lyer, this power is attainable in the following situations: first, "a person is disabled incommunicado situation"; second, if the case's circumstances and the seriousness of the problem require it; and third, where the interests of justice demand it. The court may order that such person receive legal assistance after it is satisfied on these counts.

In the Hussainara Khatoon case, the plight of the weak, hopeless, unhappy, and forgotten members of mankind who have been imprisoned for years while awaiting prosecution in a court of law has been exposed. According to Court, one of the causes of such predicament was a lack of legal aid to these destitute and homeless people, a cry that has yet to receive a response.

Contribution of Justice Bhagwati:

In the Haissainara Khatoon case[14], the court resolved the legal issue of "reasonable fair and just procedure," taking significant notice of the government's inactivity. It stipulated that legal services must be made available to the "have nots." The terms of Article 39 A were cited by the supreme court, which referred to it as "the fundamental contributional directive." However, as judicial activism gained traction on the Indian due process clause, this phrase "fundamental" was abandoned in the decision.

The court expressed concern in Khatri's case for the disdain for the introduction of the right to legal aid. The court held that the availability of such a right could not be impeded by financial incapacity. Legal aid case law demonstrates that the accused of committing a crime was granted this entitlement, which will insult any society that values peace. In the Khatri case, Justice Bhagwati expressed the opinion that in certain circumstances involving offenses, such as economic offenses or legal offenses that forbid prostitution or child abuse, among other similar offenses, social justice may dictate that the State need not give free legal services.

Various Aspects Of Judicial Activism:

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL allows individuals or groups to file petitions in court on behalf of the public interest, especially when the rights of disadvantaged or marginalized communities are at stake. To expand access to justice, allowing courts to address social issues, environmental concerns, human rights violations, and government inaction. Cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (sexual harassment at the workplace), M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (environmental protection), and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (right to livelihood).
   
• Interpretation of the Constitution: Courts, through judicial activism, often interpret constitutional provisions broadly to protect fundamental rights and address evolving societal needs. The expansion of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to include the right to privacy (as in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India), the right to clean air, and the right to a dignified life.
   
• Judicial Review: Judicial activism often involves courts engaging in judicial review, where they assess the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and policies. It can result in the nullification of laws or executive decisions that are deemed unconstitutional. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
   
• Environmental Protection: Judicial activism has led to the development of environmental jurisprudence, with courts taking proactive steps to protect the environment. The Ganga Pollution Case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India), where the Supreme Court took steps to prevent pollution in the Ganges River.

Evolution Of Environmental Laws:

The environmental constitutionalism that resulted in the addition of articles 48A and 51A(g) to the Constitution gained additional momentum in 1978 when the Supreme Court held, in the Maneka Gandhi case[19], that the proper interpretation of Article 21, which deals with the human right to life and personal liberty, would be to broaden the scope and reach of Part III of the Constitution rather than to reduce its meaning and content through judicial interpretation.

This has not only given article 21 new meaning, but the court's judicial activism in interpreting later environmental and ecological challenges has also given rise to new environmental jurisprudence, holding that the right to life encompasses right to clean and healthy environment. This allowed the court to interpret article 21 in a way that was not anticipated by the framers of the Constitution, so resurrecting as an enforceable basic right the non-justiciable commands included in article 48A[20].

In other words, the commands found in article 48A have, for all intents and purposes, been elevated to the level of fundamental right 12, which can be invoked through writ petitions under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. The traditional understanding that the state is obligated to refrain from interfering with an individual's life or personal liberty due to the negative language of article 21 and the use of the word "deprived" in it has drastically changed as a result of this new environmental jurisprudence. Nowadays, the state has a positive duty to provide a clean and healthy environment so that each person can enjoy their life, according to current environmental jurisprudence and constitutional environmentalism.

The Supreme Court, in a case, emphasized unequivocally the state's constitutional obligation to safeguard the environment. It held that, in order to improve Delhi's environment and safeguard the public's health, the local government is required by articles 39(e), 47, and 48A to phase out grossly polluting old vehicles and non-CNG buses.

The court is shaping and expanding environmental jurisprudence in light of international conventions, treaties, and agreements because it is fully aware of how environmental law is growing internationally. By using international environmental principles, the Indian judiciary is promoting environmental protection and improvement within the state's executive and legislative branches, while also strengthening and expanding the country's environmental jurisprudence.

In fact, the Indian judiciary has successfully addressed several environmental protection difficulties even in the lack of relevant domestic legislation by relying on some international environmental standards. The Supreme Court has rendered several significant decisions pertaining to the environment, drawing on the global concept of sustainable development, which requires states to assume solemn responsibility for conserving and using the environment and natural resources for the benefit of current and future generations. Additionally, the court is effectively implementing a number of the international concept of sustainable development.

Intergenerational equality is another idea that has emerged from the notion of sustainable development. This idea states that current generations shouldn't use the environment and natural resources in a way that may harm future generations. In M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath[21], the supreme court used the intergenerational equity principle, which it had already integrated into its recently formed environmental jurisprudence.

Therefore, it would not be an overstatement of the truth to say that the Indian judiciary and Constitution have been greatly influenced by the global movement for environmental protection and enhancement in order to shape and develop the country's own environmental protection and enhancement framework. The impact of global environmentalism on the Indian Constitution and judiciary is understandable given that environmental degradation is an international issue rather than a national one and that pollution within a nation's borders can have a transboundary effect that harms the environment in other nations as well.

Recent Developments:

1. National Green Tribunal (NGT): The establishment of the NGT has been a significant step in specialized environmental adjudication. However, there has been a noticeable decline in judicial activism within the NGT in recent years, partly due to what some analysts describe as "judicial fatigue." The tribunal, once a beacon of swift environmental justice, is now seen as less rigorous in enforcing environmental laws.
    
2. Public Trust Doctrine and Sustainable Development: The judiciary has frequently invoked the Public Trust Doctrine, which mandates the government to protect natural resources for public use. This doctrine has been a cornerstone in decisions that prevent the privatization of environmental assets. However, recent criticisms suggest that judicial activism has sometimes fallen short in ensuring strict enforcement, with some judgments being more symbolic than transformative.
    
3. Interpreting Fundamental Rights: The Indian Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights, especially Article 21 (Right to Life), to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. This has allowed citizens to file Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to challenge environmental degradation. Recent cases have continued this trend, reinforcing the environment as a fundamental right, as seen in the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment emphasizing intergenerational equity and sustainable climate action.

Conclusion
The preceding explanation leads to the conclusion that three government institutions must operate in their clearly defined sectors in order for the democratic government to work for the benefit of the country's population. It is critical for the country's progress that all three wings work together seamlessly. The judiciary is acting as an activist to protect the underprivilege's basic human rights while also playing an important role in bringing about social change.

In human rights jurisprudence, the judiciary has continually established new links between egalitarian democratic and free societies, in accordance with universal sociopolitical and economic rights. Right to information, right to work, right to minimum pay, fast trial, right to confidentiality, right against inhuman treatment are some of the examples.

Access to justice is the most fundamental human right, and judicial activity is the saviour of that right. This new breakthrough has boosted dynamism. This has been referred to as judicial activism. When a citizen complains about unfair treatment or a breach of his rights by the executive or legislative branches, judicial action becomes necessary. When the administration refuses to carry out the legislative will, the courts intervene to guarantee compliance with the parliamentary mandate.

The Court cannot be a bystander when fundamental human rights are violated. It must respond to the disadvantaged and downtrodden in order to provide justice. According to Justice A. S. Anand, "judicial activism strengthens democracy and reaffirms the public's faith in the rule of law." If the court closed its doors to citizens who saw the legislative as ineffective and the administration as apathetic, the citizens would resort to the streets, which would be harmful for both the Rule of Law and the democratic functioning of the State."

Bibliography:
Books:

• K. L. Bhatia, Judicial review and judicial activism: A comparative study of India and Germany from an Indian perspective, p.116.
• S.P Sathe, Judicial Activism in India - Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits 5 (2002).
• Upendra Baxi, 'Preface in Judicial Activism in India - Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits xiii-xiv (2002).
• The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation by Granville Austin.
• Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India 182 (1994).

Articles and Journals:

• R.K. Bag, Judicial Activism vis-à-vis Public Administration, The Administrator, Vol. XLII, p.167.
• Austin Granville, The Indian Constitution - Cornerstone of a Nation 169 (2000).
• P.M. Bakshi, Judicial Activism: Some Reflections, The Administrator, Vol. XLII(2), P.5.
• Judicial Activism, M.M. Semwal, Sunil Khosla, Vol. 69, No.1.
• Evolution of Judicial Activism in India, Ravi P. Bhatia, Vol. 45, No. 2.

End Notes:

• Austin Granville, The Indian Constitution - Cornerstone of a Nation 169 (2000)
• S.C Kashyap, Our Constitution 205 (1999)
• R.K. Bag, Judicial Activism vis-à-vis Public Administration, The Administrator, Vol. XLII, p.167.
• P.M. Bakshi, Judicial Activism: Some Reflections, The Administrator, Vol. XLII(2), P.5.
• K. L. Bhatia, Judicial Review and Judicial Activism: A Comparative Study of India and Germany from an Indian Perspective, p.116.
• A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27,34.
• S.P Sathe, Judicial Activism in India - Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits 5 (2002).
• Upendra Baxi, 'Preface in Judicial Activism in India - Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits xiii-xiv (2002).
• A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207.
• Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, 2 SCR (1967) 763.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
• The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation by Granville Austin.
• AIR 1978 SC 1548.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR (1979) 1369.
• AIR 1997 SC 3011.
• AIR 1986 SC 180.
• (2017) 10 SCC 1.
• (1988) 1 SCC 471.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 594.
• Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India 182 (1994).
• (2000) 6 SCC at 213.

Written By: Adv.Rajsee M.Khedkar