GS Question

Judicial activism, particularly through the development of the "basic structure" doctrine, has indeed played a highly proactive role in shaping India's democracy. This doctrine, introduced by the Supreme Court of India in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, establishes the limits beyond which Parliament cannot amend the Constitution. By safeguarding the basic structure of the Constitution, the judiciary has actively worked towards preserving democratic principles and upholding the rights and freedoms of the citizens.

One of the key ideals of democracy is the separation of powers, which aims to prevent the concentration of excessive power in any one branch of government. Judicial activism has acted as a check on both the executive and legislative branches, ensuring that they do not overstep their constitutional boundaries. By interpreting and clarifying the Constitution, the judiciary has strived to maintain this balance of power, thereby supporting the democratic framework of governance.

Another important role of judicial activism in promoting democracy is the protection of fundamental rights. The Indian Constitution provides for a comprehensive set of fundamental rights, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and personal liberty. Through judicial activism, the judiciary has played a vital role in expanding and safeguarding these rights, especially for marginalized and disadvantaged groups. Landmark judgments like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) have contributed to advancing gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights, respectively, and thereby strengthening democratic values.

Additionally, judicial activism has served as a mechanism for social change by addressing societal issues that elected representatives may not prioritize due to various reasons. The judiciary has taken cognizance of public interest litigations (PILs), allowing citizens to directly approach the court with grievances related to important matters such as environmental degradation, corruption, and human rights violations. By intervening in such cases, the judiciary has not only provided accountability and justice but also acted as a catalyst for reforms and policy changes, promoting a more inclusive and responsive democracy.

However, it is important to acknowledge that judicial activism should not be construed as judicial overreach. There is a fine line between interpreting the law and making laws, and an excessive judicial intervention may encroach upon the legislative domain. Striking the right balance between activism and restraint is crucial to maintain the democratic principles of separation of powers and respect for the choices made by elected representatives.

In conclusion, judicial activism, characterized by the development of the "basic structure" doctrine and other interventions, has played a proactive role in strengthening India's democracy. By preserving the basic structure of the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights, and addressing societal issues, the judiciary has contributed to the realization of democratic ideals. However, it should be exercised judiciously to ensure that it complements the functions of the legislature and executive without undermining their democratic mandates.