Judicial activism

What is judicial activism? Where it is first developed? Types of judicial activism? How it developed in india? Whom it is concerned with? Shapes of judicial activism? How far it is justifiable in Indian judiciary? Impact of judicial activism?
Education shops all over the country have been fleecing the unwary candidates seeking admission to medical and engineering colleges by demanding huge capitation fees. The state governments either watched hopelessly or connived with the exploiters. The aggrieved parents went to the Supreme Court seeking relief from the arbitrary charges of the private institutions. The Apex Court came to the aid of the citizens by banning huge capitation fees and rationalising the fee-structure of professional engineering and medical courses. The private colleges were prescribed a maximum limit upto, which they could charge for paid seats and fixed a quota of merit seats. The most significant contribution of the judicial activism is to be seen in the protection of fundamental rights of citizens. Judicial activism in the field of education has won great accolade for the Judiciary Judicial activism caughtthe public eye initially when thejudges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court started taking cognizance of the cases of injustice brought to their notice through an ordinary letter some instance of grave injustice. The Supreme Court in its Historic Judgement in Sat Pal Anand Versus Union of India issued orders to the Education Secretaries of all state governments to take immediate and time bound steps to make free education available to all children upto the age of fourteen and also to bring suitable legislation so as to make the right to education as a fundamental right.

the judiciary is seen as a source of hope by common man only when it is an activist. Judicial Activism is a doctrine that describes the way a court should actively access its power as a check to the activities of governmental bodies, when it is thought that those bodies have exceeded their authority. Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court should be an active and creative partner with the legislative and executive branches in help shaping the government policy Judicial Restraint is the idea that the Court should not place its views on other branches of the government or the states unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution (Wasserman American Politics 138). Judges, who believe in this form of our court system, say that a passive role of the court is preferred and that the other branches of the government should pave the way for policy and civil case changes. Stare decisis --stand by what has been decided.

The Govt div n 2 3 wings

1. Legislature 2. Executive 3. Judiciary.

In the rapid changing world legislature could not anticipate every future problems, hence law may be silent on some part, to fill this part judiciary uses its creativity and acts as a bridge between law and the social problem. This creativity is called as judicial activism. Without judicial creativity there can be no judicial activism

Id like to coat an example about judicial activism and its impact parliament or legislature and its reaction. Prior to the I C Golaknath vs state of Punjab case amendment to the constitution was not considered as law under art 13. That is parliament can amend the constitution such an extend to abridge fundamental rights. Only in this case the court decided, constitutions amendments were also considered as law and any law could not be passed inconsistent with fundamental rights. The parliament reacted to this judgment by introducing 24th amendment to the constitution and restored its power it had before I C Golaknath case. This amendment along with other amendments was challenged in Kesavanandha Bharathi vs. state of Kerala contending that legislature has given unlimited power to amendment the constitution. The court reversed Golaknath and decided that parliament should not have unlimited power that it should not amend the basic structure of the constitution that is the fundamental rights and also said that court would from time to time decide what exactly the basic structure is. Thus court removed the absolute restriction and placed judicial scrutiny on the amendments of the constitution. The parliament again reacted to the this judgment by supersession of senior judges and also tried to abolish the basic structure doctrine through 42nd amendment to the constitution this was again challenged in Minerva Mills vs. Union of India and unanimously held by 5 judges that parliament can amend any part of the constitution as long as it does not violate basic structure of the constitution. Court recently upheld the basic structure only with respect to constitution amendment. In the post emergency period the courts started looking in broader sense rather confine within the textual interpretation. Right to life was interpreted in a broader sense.

3 contours (shape) of judicial activism

1. PIL:- Developed by judiciary, court along with social activist survey the matters of Govt
commitment for the welfare of the poor and oppressed concerning society at large. So as to bring judges close to common men. One main reason for the increase in PIL is the failure, complacent nature of the other two organs of the Govt

2. Broader interpretation of Fundamental Rights. 3. Accountability of officials.

Achievement of judicial activism. Judiciary has started acting saviour for the underprivileged, pitiable common people. As the society changes continuously it is not possible for legislature to make frequent laws for the changing needs of the society hence the judiciary started playing significance role in the advancement of the people and their fundamental rights.

Doctrine of separation of powers conclusion