Dimensions of Indian Judicial Activism

Abstract

The Constitution of India has embodied a faith in the words of Abraham Lincon “that the Government of the people, for the people and by the people shall not perish upon this earth”. In consideration, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution, created three arms-Parliament, Executive and the Judiciary. In the Constitutional scheme parliament is not supreme. It is subject to a major limitation-that legislation does not violate any fundamental rights or constitutional values. In the context, the judiciary can strike down any law that is beyond Parliament’s legislative competence or is violative of the Constitution. In line, Article 142 of the Constitution had given a unique extraordinary power to our Supreme Court to do complete justice in any matter before it. As the umpire of the constitutional system and the legal process, the Supreme Court has to strive to relieve the tensions of a developing nation, to resolve the conflicts of a diverse and open society and to accommodate adjudicate antagonistic demands for justice. In performing those difficult and complex tasks with considerable erudition, understanding and wisdom, the judicial system as a whole and the summit courts, in particular, has made an important and enduring contribution to nation-building (Singhvi, 1979). In the light of these the judiciary has shed its pro-status-quo approach and taken upon itself the duty to enforce the basic rights of the poor and vulnerable sections of society, by progressive interpretation and positive action. Judicial activism refers to the interference of the judiciary in the legislative and executive fields. It mainly occurs due to the non-activity of the other organs of the government and relates closely to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction and separation of powers.