Somya Krishna Tuli, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
Ginni Chopra, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
ABSTRACT
In the democratic structure of India, there is a constant tug-of-war between two contrary philosophies i.e. judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism involves having courts make, andshape laws and policies, considering everything to deal with various social, political, and economic issues. This finds glaring expression through many landmark decisions in courts. However, judicial restraint is the belief that seeks a minimal role for the judiciary, refrains from interfering with the activities of legislatures and executive branches and stays away from past judgments and political decisions. Evidence of this can be drawn from various cases. Although judicial activism may help fine-tune the government's delivery of justice by filling in legal gaps and moving towards expediting the process, it can also be tantamount to judicial overreach and encroachment into the separation of powers. In such a scenario, judicial restraint is preferred by advocates of stability and moderation and those who dislike judicial overreaching, but it may set a limitation on the judiciary's capacity to deal with crying social maladies. Elements of judicial activism and restraint can find a balanced approach in the form of promotion of advancing Indian democracy through fair rulings, in light of the realities of their own limitations.
Comments