Indian Polity is structured in a manner that horizontally divides the organs of government, into three institutions responsible for different functions i.e., Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. While a system of checks and balances exists wherein each organ complements the task of another, they each have autonomous functions that cannot be overridden. Judicial Activism is an active function of the Indian Judiciary that enables it to focus on providing socio-economic justice, protecting their individual liberty, and ensuring social cohesion.

A significant role in fostering democratic values through landmark judgments is evident by the constitutional principles as it aims to protect a fair delivery of justice. Even though judicial precedents through the way of judicial activism have advanced democratic values in India, this overreaching power of the Indian Judiciary allegedly threatens the balance of power amongst the three aforementioned horizontal organs. While the judiciary has taken measures in order to ensure judicial activism, it has had its own inefficacies in employing it in the need of hour.

To first delve into the evolution of judicial activism in Indian courts we need to date back to the enactment of the constitution which gave the power of vigilance over Fundamental Right and Directive Principles of State Policy. 1950s played a major role in setting up of state institutions, especially in terms of justice since after the colonial rule, much was remained to be achieved in order to have a fully functioning judicial system that could cater to the pressing issues in courts.

As changes cannot be not made over a day in a democracy as big as India, deliberations were made over the 'activist' role of the judiciary and the same were challenged time and again. Legal precedents were set through this judicial power in cases such as Golaknath v. State of Punjab[1] and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Bihar[2] where the bench introduced the basic structure doctrine, ensuring Fundamental Rights to the citizens along with upholding the spirit of the Preamble. While commendable works like these exist, they may obscure cases wherein judiciary has failed to exercise their power of judicial activism.

Public Interest Litigations (PIL), a brain child of Justice P.N. Bhagwati, built upon in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[3], has been a tool that has helped the poor, disadvantaged and indigent section of the nation in accessing courts. However, instead of remaining merely a mechanism for seeking legal remedy in dire circumstances, the judiciary's role firm activism has shifted to supervisory one, wherein it reprimands the authorities or policies that have failed to do their job.

The idea behind putting such a mechanism in place was to recognise the socially excluded but over time judicial activism as a redressal mechanism took up a plethora of issues like environment, property rights, educational institutions, etc. through its courts as well as quasi-judicial bodies like National Green Tribunal, Central Administrative Tribunal and others.[4]

Bhopal Gas Leak case, a tragedy because of one the worst errors in the industrial sectors, is an example of sloppiness in exercising the power of judicial activism. Union Carbide Corporations v. Union of India [5] demanded for an active role of judiciary in providing compensation to the victims who suffered due to the grave error of maintaining a toxic chemical, medical effects of the tragedy still exist latently. The issues that majorly crept up during the trial of this tragedy was predominantly based on the assumption 'the State' seeking justice on behalf of the victims and in the process of doing so it generalised the effect of the tragedy and inhibited individual representation of those who chose to seek individual justice.

While the victims of this infamous event marked in history were many, the term 'victim' in itself had become vague and polysemic symbol imagined according to the needs of the major actors in the litigation, but never present in palpable form. [6] Activist groups should be recognized for their strive to represent the needs of the people, but in doing so, the judiciary should not overlook the demand for individual justice, merely because the courts fulfilled their role as activists in resolving the conflict.[7]

Over time, the genre of social activism has undergone a complete shift from its original form.[8] In the words of Sathe, 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."[9] Rather there should be a mechanism where the judiciary looks into the implementation of laws in coherence with the interpretation of the statues along with expert advice on the particular issue so that it doesn't overreach its organisation role in the nation.

The judgment in cases like Bhopal Gas Tragedy, Visakha,[10] and Upendra Baxi[11] raise concerns regarding group rights rather than individual rights. Downtrodden were not consulted in the victims of Bhopal Gas Leak, everyday rape victims were not referred to before placing any such guidelines, and Baxi case brings light to dismal conditions in protective homes that are under the aegis of the Indian polity.

The judiciary has had a complex narrative of progress and challenges. In exercising judicial activism, the judiciary ends up steeping over the functions outside its domain and it becomes a case of judicial excessivism. A balance between the two is necessary in order to ensure just and rightful intervention of the judiciary.

While judgements have been given where a needful role of an activist has been played by the judiciary, it has had its own inefficacies in providing justice to individually aggrieved people, especially belonging to minority groups. Even though landmark cases set precedents that are remarkable works of activism, it fails to address individual needs of victims belonging to the minority intersectional group that really require the interventionist role to seek justice.

End Notes:

1. Golaknath v. State of Punjab 1967 AIR 1643.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Bihar AIR 1973 SC 1461.
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 1979 AIR 1369.
4. T.C.A. Anant and Jaivir Singh, An Economic Analysis of Judicial Activism, ECO. & POL. WEEKLY, Vol. 37, No. 43 (OCT. 26 – Nov. 1, 2002) 4433, 4434 (2002).
5. Union Carbide Corporations v. Union of India 1990 AIR 273.
6. Micheal R. Andreson, Litigation and Activism: The Bhopal Case, 3rd WORLD LEGAL STU., Vol. 12, 177, 181 (1993).
7. Andreson, supra note 6 at 186-187.
8. Ravi P. Bhatia, Evolution of Judicial Activism in India, JOR. ILU, Vol. 45 No. 2 April-June, 262, 264 (2003).
9. Bhatia, supra note 8 at 264.
10. Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011.
11. Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. (1983) 2 SCC 308.