Judicial Activism, Judicial Review, and Executive-Legislature Relations

  • Judicial Activism:
    • Definition: Often used with Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to describe the judiciary’s proactive role in recent times, making it more people-friendly.
    • Origin of PIL/SAL: Traditionally, only personally aggrieved individuals could approach courts. Around 1979, the Supreme Court changed this trend by hearing a case filed by others on behalf of aggrieved persons (Public Interest Litigation – PIL or Social Action Litigation – SAL).
    • Expansion of Access: This opened doors for public-spirited citizens and voluntary organizations to seek judicial intervention for protecting existing rights, improving life conditions of the poor, protecting the environment, and other public interest issues. PIL became the primary vehicle for judicial activism.
    • Proactive Judiciary: The judiciary began considering cases based on newspaper reports and postal complaints, moving beyond its traditional role of only responding to cases brought before it.
    • Early PIL Examples:
      • Hussainara Khatoon vs. Bihar (1979): Exposed “under trials” in Bihar jails who had spent longer in detention than their potential sentence. An advocate filed a petition which the Supreme Court heard.
      • Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1980): A Tihar jail inmate’s letter narrating physical torture was converted into a petition by Justice Krishna Iyer.
    • Expansion of Rights through PIL: The court expanded the idea of rights to include clean air, unpolluted water, and decent living for the entire society.
    • Access for the Needy: Judiciary showed readiness to consider rights of sections that cannot easily approach courts, allowing public-spirited individuals and organizations to file petitions on their behalf. Justice Bhagwati emphasized a “different kind of judicial approach” for the poor to enforce their fundamental rights, as adversarial procedure would fail them.
    • Impact of Judicial Activism:
      • Democratized the judicial system by giving individuals and groups access to courts.
      • Forced executive accountability.
      • Attempted to make the electoral system fairer (e.g., candidates filing affidavits of assets, income, education).
    • Negative Side of Judicial Activism:
      • Overburdened the courts.
      • Blurred the distinction between executive/legislature and judiciary.
      • Courts involved in executive matters (reducing pollution, investigating corruption, electoral reform) that traditionally belong to administration under legislative supervision.
      • Created a “delicate balance” among government organs, potentially straining the democratic principle of respecting each other’s powers.
  • Judiciary and Rights (Remedies for Violation):
    • Protector of Rights: Judiciary entrusted with protecting individual rights.
    • Two Constitutional Remedies:
      • Restoration of Fundamental Rights (Article 32): Supreme Court can restore rights by issuing writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, etc.). High Courts also have this power (Article 226).
      • Judicial Review (Article 13): Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional and non-operational if it’s inconsistent with the Constitution. This power is implicitly derived from India having a written constitution and the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down laws violating fundamental rights.
    • Protector and Interpreter: Together, writ powers and judicial review establish the Supreme Court as the protector of fundamental rights and interpreter of the Constitution.
    • Review Power Extension: Extends to laws violating federal distribution of powers (e.g., central government law on a State list subject). Also extends to laws passed by State legislatures.
    • Empowerment: Writ and review powers make the judiciary very powerful, enabling it to effectively protect the Constitution and citizen rights. PILs further enhance this power.
    • Global Context of PIL: PIL is becoming more acceptable globally, particularly in South Asia and Africa. South Africa’s constitution includes PIL as a fundamental right to bring cases of others’ rights violations to the Constitutional Court.
    • Meaningful Rights for Disadvantaged: PIL and judicial activism made rights meaningful for the poor and disadvantaged by addressing issues like blinding of jail inmates, inhuman working conditions, sexual exploitation of children, etc..
  • Judiciary and Parliament (Relationship and Conflicts):
    • Preventing Subversion: Courts actively prevent subversion of the Constitution through political practice, bringing areas like President’s and Governor’s powers under judicial review.
    • Directions to Executive: SC gives directions to executive agencies (e.g., CBI investigations in hawala, Narasimha Rao, petrol pump cases). Many are products of judicial activism.
    • Limited Separation of Powers: Indian Constitution based on delicate principle of limited separation of powers and checks and balances.
      • Parliament: Supreme in law-making and amending Constitution.
      • Executive: Supreme in implementing laws.
      • Judiciary: Supreme in settling disputes and deciding law constitutionality.
    • Recurrent Conflict: Despite clear division, conflict between Parliament/judiciary and executive/judiciary has been a recurrent theme.
    • Right to Property Controversy:
      • Post-1950: Parliament wanted to restrict property rights for land reforms; Court held Parliament couldn’t restrict fundamental rights.
      • Parliament’s Amendment Power: Court said even amendments couldn’t abridge fundamental rights.
      • Key Issues in Conflict (1967-1973): Scope of private property rights, Parliament’s power to curtail/abridge fundamental rights, Parliament’s power to amend Constitution, laws abridging fundamental rights while enforcing directive principles. This period saw serious conflict over land reform, preventive detention, reservations, and private property acquisition compensation.
    • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Landmark decision regulating Parliament-Judiciary relations.
      • Basic Structure Doctrine: Ruled that there’s a basic structure of the Constitution that cannot be violated even by parliamentary amendment.
      • Right to Property: Not part of basic structure, hence could be abridged.
      • Judicial Authority: Court reserved the right to decide what constitutes the basic structure. Best example of judicial power to interpret Constitution.
    • Changed Nature of Conflicts: This ruling changed legislature-judiciary conflicts. Right to property removed from Fundamental Rights in 1979.
    • Unresolved Issues & Potential Conflict:
      • Judiciary’s intervention in legislative functioning/privileges.
      • Parliament’s discussion of judges’ conduct (except during removal).
      • Legislatures casting aspersions on judiciary; judiciary criticizing legislatures/issuing instructions on legislative business (seen as violating parliamentary sovereignty).
    • Delicate Balance: These issues highlight the delicate balance between government organs and the importance of respecting each other’s authority in a democracy.
  • Conclusion:
    • The judiciary’s prestige has increased despite tensions with executive and legislature.
    • High expectations from judiciary, but concerns about easy acquittals and changing testimonies due to wealthy/mighty influence.
    • Indian judiciary is powerful and independent. Through decisions, it has interpreted the Constitution and protected citizen rights.
    • Democracy hinges on the delicate balance of power between judiciary and Parliament, with both functioning within constitutional limitations.
  • Legal Services Authorities:
    • Aim: Provide Free Legal Aid and Advice, Spread Legal Awareness, Organise Lok Adalats, Promote Settlement of Disputes through ADR Mechanisms, Provide compensation to victims of crime.
    • Eligibility for Free Legal Services: Women and children, SC/ST members, industrial workmen, persons with disability, victims of natural disasters/violence, persons in custody, persons with annual income < Rs. 1,00,000, victims of human trafficking/begar.
    • Institutions: National, State, District, Taluka/Sub-Divisional Legal Services Authorities/Committees, High Court Legal Services Committee, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Services provided in Civil, Criminal, Revenue Courts, Tribunals, etc..

This MCQ module is based on: Judicial Activism, Judicial Review, and Executive-Legislature Relations

This assessment will be based on: Judicial Activism, Judicial Review, and Executive-Legislature Relations

  • Real-Life Connections & General Knowledge:
    • Judicial activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India are globally recognized unique contributions to modern jurisprudence, enabling access to justice for marginalized communities.
    • The “Basic Structure Doctrine” from the Kesavananda Bharati case is a landmark principle in Indian constitutional law, safeguarding the fundamental tenets of the Constitution from parliamentary overreach.
    • The ongoing tension between the judiciary and Parliament over issues like legislative privileges and judicial oversight is a dynamic feature of India’s constitutional democracy, reflecting the principle of checks and balances.
  • Case-based Scenarios & Reasoning:
    • Scenario: A group of slum dwellers faces eviction by a municipal corporation aiming to “beautify the city” for investors. A PIL is filed against the eviction, arguing for the right to life of the residents.
      • Question: As a judge, how would you evaluate the conflicting claims of “public interest” (beautification for investors) versus “right to life” (of slum dwellers), considering the Supreme Court’s expanded interpretation of rights through PIL?
    • Scenario: A new law passed by Parliament is challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates a fundamental right and also infringes upon the distribution of powers between the Union and the States.
      • Question: Explain how the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review would apply in this situation, detailing the dual grounds on which the law could be declared unconstitutional.
  • Conceptual Application:
    • Analyze the “negative side” of judicial activism, particularly how it can “blur the line of distinction” between government organs, and discuss the implications for the principle of separation of powers.
    • Explain how PIL has democratized the judicial system beyond providing individual remedies, by granting access to groups and enforcing executive accountability.
  • Numerical/Data Interpretation:
    • Legal Services Income Eligibility: “annual income of less than Rs.1,00,000/-” for free legal services provides a specific economic criterion for social welfare.
Previous Topic
Back to Lesson
Next Lesson