Judi ci alAct i vi sm:Meani ngandi mpl i cat i ons
ABSTRACT: Thej udi c i alact i vi sm i suseofj udi ci alpowe rt oar t i cul at eand enf or cewhati s benefici alf ort hes oc i e t yi ngene r alandpeopl eatl ar ge .Supr emeCour tdespi t e i t sconst i t ut i onall i mi t at i on hascome meup wi t h flyi ngcol or sasa champ mpi on of j us t i cei nt het r ues enseoft hewor d.JUSTI CE… t hi ssev enl e t t e rwor di soneof t hemostdebat ed onesi nt heent i r eEngl i sh di ct i onary .Wi t ht heent i r ewor l d popul at i on bei ng l i nked t oi t ,t her ei s no doubtaboutt he f actt hatwi wi t h changi ngt onguest hedefini t i ondoeschange.Thej udi ci alact i vi sm hast ouched al mo s te v e r yas pe c to fl i f ei nI ndi at odopo s i t i v ej us t i c eandi nt hepr o c es shas gonebey ond,whati spr es cr i bed by l aw orwr i t t en i n bl ack and whi t e.Onl y t hi ng t he j udi ci ary mustkeep i n mi nd i st hatwhi l e goi ng ov er boar dt o do j us t i ce t oc ommon man mus t not ov e r s t ep t he l i mi t at i ons pr es cr i be d by s ac r o s anc ti . e .TheCo ns t i t ut i o n.
Judi ci al ac t i v i sm des cr i be j s udi c i alr ul i ngs s us pec t e d of bei ng base d on 1 pe r s o nalo rpo l i t i c alc o ns i de r a t i o nsr at he rt han o ne x i s t i ngl a w. Thequest i on ofj udi c i alac t i v i s m i sc l os el yr e l at e dt oc ons t i t ut i onali nt e r pr e t at i on,s t at ut o r y c ons t r uc t i o n,andsepar at i onofpower s . Bl ac k' sL aw Di c t i o nar y de fines j udi ci alact i vi sm as a " phi l osophy ofj udi ci al deci si onmaki ngwher ebyj udgesal l ow t hei rper sonalvi ewsaboutpubl i cpol i cy , amo mongot herf act ors,t ogui det hei rdeci si ons. "Judi ci alact i vi sm meansact i ve r ol epl ayed by t hej udi ci aryi n pr omo mot i ng j ust i ce.Judi ci alAct i vi sm t o define 2 br oadl y ,i st heass umpt i onofanact i v er ol eont hepar toft hej udi ci ar y . Ronal d Dwor ki n,f ore xampl e ,r e j e c t sa“ s t r i c ti nt e r pr e t at i on”o ft hec ons t i t ut i onalt e xt becaus ei tl i mi t scons t i t ut i onalr i ght s“ t ot hos er ecogni sedbyal i mi t edgr oupof pe opl eatafix e ddat eofhi s t or y . ”
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_a i/Judicial_activism ctivism
2
Chaterji Susanta, !"or #u$lic %dministration& 's judicial activism reall( deterrent to legislative anarch( anarch( and e)ecutive t(rann( * , +he %dministrator, ol ol -'', %pril June 100, p0, at p11
Acc or di ng t o Pr of .Upe ndr a Baxi ,Judi c i alAct i vi sm i s an i ns cr i pt i v et er m.I t meansdi ffer entt hi ngst odi ffer entpeopl e.Whi l esomemayexal tt het er m by descr i bi ng i t as j udi ci al cr eat i vi t y , dynami sm of t he j udges, bri ngi ng a r evol ut i on i nt hefiel dofhuman r i ght sandsoci alwel f aret hr ough enf or cement o fpubl i cdut i e se t c . ,o t he r sha v ec r i t i c i z e dt het e r m byde s c r i bi ngi tasj udi c i al ext r emi sm,j udi ci alt er r ori sm,t r ansgr essi on i nt ot he domai ns oft he ot her o r g ansoft heSt at ene g at i ngt heco ns t i t ut i o nals pi r i te t c . Judi ci alac t i v i sm i mpl i e sgoi ngbe y ondt henor malcons t r ai nt sappl i edt oj ur i s t s and t he Cons t i t ut i on, whi ch gi v es j ur i st st he r i ght t os t r i ke down any l e g i s l at i o no rr ul e ag ai ns tt he pr e c e de nti fi tg o es ag ai ns tt he Co ns t i t ut i o n. Thus,r ul i ngagai ns tmaj or i t yopi ni on orj udi c i alpr ece de nti snotnec ess ar i l y j udi c i alac t i v i sm unl es si ti sac t i v e.I nt hewor dsofJus t i ceJ. SVer ma,Judi ci al Act i vi sm mus tne cessar i l yme an “t heac t i v epr oce ssofi mpl eme nt at i on oft he r ul eofl a w,e s s ent i alf o rt hepr e s er v at i o no faf unc t i o nalde mo cr a c y” . I n amoder n democr at i csetup,j udi ci alact i vi sm shoul d bel ooked upon asa mechani sm t ocur bl egi sl at i veadvent ur i sm andexecut i vet yr annybyenf or ci ng Co ns t i t ut i o nall i mi t s .Thati s ,i ti sonl ywhe nt heLe g i s l at ur ea ndt heEx e c ut i v e f ai li nt he i rr e s pons i bi l i t yort r yt oav oi di t ,t hatj udi c i alac t i v i s m hasar o l et o pl ay .I n ot herwor ds,j udi ci alact i vi sm i st o bevi ewed as a “ damage cont r ol ” exer ci se,i n whi chsense,i ti sonl yat empor aryphase.Recentt i meshaveseen j udi c i ar ypl ayai nt r usi v er ol esi nt hear easofcons t i t ut i onal l yr es er v e df ort he ot her branches of gove r nment s. I ss ues i n j udi ci al act i vi sm ar i se , when gov er nancei sappar ent l ydonebyMandamus. The Cons t i t ut i on of I ndi a oper at e s i n happy har mony wi t h t he i ns t r ume nt al i t i e so ft hee xe c ut i v eandt hel e gi s l at ur e .Butt obet r ul yg r e at ,t he j udi c i ar ye xer ci si ngdemocr at i cpowermus tenj oyi ndependenceofahi ghor de r . Buti ndependencecoul dbec omedange r ousandundemocr at i cunl es st her ei sa c o ns t i t ut i o naldi s c i pl i newi t hr ul e sofg oo dc o nduc tandac c o unt abi l i t y :wi t ho ut 3 t hese,t her obesmaypr ovearr ogant . Judi ci alac t i vi sm i st hev i e wt hatt heSupr emeCour tandot he rj udgescanand s ho ul dc r e at i v e l y( r e ) i nt e r pr e tt he t e x t so ft he Co ns t i t ut i o n and t he l a ws i n or dert o ser vet he j udges 'own vi si ons r egar di ng t he needs ofcont empor ary 4 s o c i e t y . Judi ci alac t i vi sm bel i e v est hatj udgesassumea r ol easi ndependent pol i cymaker sori ndependent" t r ust ees"on behal fofsoci et yt hatgoesbeyond 6
3ttp://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article45404.ece http://de7nitions.uslegal.com/j/judicialactivism/
t he i rt r adi t i o nalr o l easi nt e r pr e t e r soft heCo ns t i t ut i o n andl a ws .Thec o nc e pt ofj udi c i alac t i v i s mi st hepol aro ppos i t eofj udi c i alr e s t r ai nt . Fai l ur e on partoft he l egi sl at i veand execut i ve wi ngs oft he Gover nmentt o pr ovi de ‘ good governance’makes j udi ci alact i vi sm an i mper at i ve.Del i ver i ng j us t i cet oapopul at i onofov erabi l l i ondoesnotsoundl i keandnev erwi l lbean easyt ask.I thoweverbecomesi ncr easi ngl ydi fficul ti nacount ryl i keI ndi a.The Execut i ve,t heLegi sl at ur eandt heJudi ci aryaret het hr eewi ngsoft heI ndi an democr acy . Judi ci alac t i v i sm,howe v er ,camei nt oi t sownonl yi nt hel as tc oupl eofy ear s.I n hi sDr .Zaki rHuss ai n Memor i alLect ur e,FormerChi efJus t i ceofI ndi a A. M. Ahmadis ai d,“ I nr e centy ear s,ast hei ncumbent sofPar l i amenthav ebec ome l essrepr esent at i veoft hewi l loft hepeopl e,t her ehasbeen agr owi ngsenseof publ i cf r ust r at i on wi t ht he democr at i c pr ocess .Thi si st he r eason why t he ( Supr eme)Cour thad t o expand i t sj ur i sdi ct i on by,att i mes,i ssui ng nove l di r e c t i onst ot hee xe cut i v e . ” Manyar ec r i t i c alo fj udi c i alac t i v i s m asan e x e r c i s eo fj udi c i alpo we r s ,whi c h di spl aces exi st i ng l aws orcr eat es mor el egaluncer t ai nt yt han i s necess ary , whe t herornott her ul i ng hassome c ons t i t ut i onal ,hi s t or i c alorot herbasi s. Judi ci alact i vi s m canbec onsi der edas“ l e gi sl at i ngf r om t hebenc h. ”Somehav e e v e ng onet ot hee xt e nto fc al l i ngi tj udi c i alt y r a nny .Thi si mpl i e st hataj udg ei s rul i ngon t hebasi sper sonalpol i t i calconvi ct i onsoremot i ons.Decl ari ngt hat t he j udi ci ary has a vi t alf unct i on t o pr ot ectmi nori t y ri ght si n a pl ur al i st s oc i e t y ,f or me rAt t or ne yGe ne r alofI ndi aSol iJSor a bj e es ai d' ' j udi c i alac t i v i s m 5 hascont r i but edt ot heprot ect i onoff undament alhumanr i ght s. Whe n ser i ousi s sues l i keenv i r onment alpol l ut i on c r op up and t hes t at ut or y bodi es t ake no ac t i on and t he peopl e suffer ,t he cour t s hav et os t ep i nt o al l evi at e human suffer i ng,he added.Cal l i ng upon t he j udi ci ary t o ev ol vea ' ' j uri sprudence ofcompassi on' ' ,Mr Sorabj ee sai dt he i nst i t ut i on ofpubl i c i nt e r e s tl i t i g at i o n( PI L)had he l pe dt os e c ur e' ' f undame nt alr i g ht s as a l i v i ng r e al i t yf o rs o mes e c t i o nsofs o ci e t y . ' 'Ho we v e r ,t hes e ni o rSupr e meCo ur tl a wy e r c aut i o ne dt hatP I L' ' c oul d no tbet r e a t e d asa pi l lf ore v e r yi l l ' 'and s ai dt hat somehad soughtt ousei tasan i nst r umentofbl ackmai landoppr es si on.The j udi c i ar y had t o be vi gi l antag ai ns tpe r sonal ,pol i t i caland publ i ci t y or i ent e d l i t i gat i on masquer adi ngasPI L,headded.Howeve r ,t heabuseofPI Lwasnota ground f ori t s abol i t i on orr est ri ct i on as i thad pl ayed an i mport antr ol ei n 5
http://news.oneindia.in/2884/11/15/sora$jeede9endsjudicialactivism1221681.html
securi ng j ust i ce t o sufferi ng sect i ons,r angi ng f r om under t ri alpri soner st o chi l dr en wor ki ng i n hazar dousoccupat i ons and wor ker st r eat ed as sl ave si n quarri esandki l ns.Laudi ngJust i ce( Ret d. )V R Kri shnaI yerf orhi sj udgment s uphol di ngri ght sofpr i soner s,MrSor abj eesai dt ort ur ewasr ampanti nI ndi an pr i soncel l s.Bygi vi ngj udgment sagai nstsol i t aryconfinementandhandcuffing ofpri soner s,Just i ceKri shnaI yerhaduphel dbasi chuman di gni t y . Judi ci alact i vi sm mi ghtsound,f ora l ay man,a heav y dut yt er m buti nt he si mpl ermanneri squi t eeasyt ocompre hend.Wecan sayi n si mpl ewor dst hat j udi c i alact i vi s mi sapr ac t i c ebyt hej udgest hatdoesnoti nv ol v et hebal anc eof l aw,i nst ead i thamper si t .I nj udi ci alact i vi sm,t he j udge pl aces hi s final deci si on wi t h hi sheartand mi nd,whi ch i semot i onal l yhandl ed.I t ,att i mes, wor ksi n ourf av ourt osav ef r om t hewr ongde ci s i on t ot akepl acebutatt i mes i tal s obac kfir e sonus .I no t he rwo r dswec ane as i l ys ayt hatj udi c i alac t i v i s mi s t he pr act i cegoi ng beyond t henor mall aw f ort hej ur y .Ther e ar e someve r y i mpor t antcase swhi ch comei nt het al k whenev erwedi sc ussaboutj udi ci al r agedy and t he Jess i c a LalMur derc ase ar act i vi sm i nI ndi a.Bhopalgas t e amongt het op t wo.Thel at t erwasan open and shutcas ef oral l .Mone yand muscl epowert r i ed t o wi n ove rt hegood.Butl at el y ,i twas wi t ht hehel p of j udi c i alact i vi s m t hatt he c as e came t o atl eas tone de ci s i on.The t wo mo s t promi nentfigur esi nt heBarCounci lofI ndi awhosenamesar et hemosti nt er r el at ed wi t hj udi ci alact i vi sm ar eJust i cePr af ul l achandr a Nat war l alBhagwat i andJust i ceVai dyanat hapur aRamaKr i shnaI ye r . 6 i san exampl eofj udi ci alact i vi sm.TheSupr emeCour tby TheGol akNat h case a maj or i t y of s i x agai ns t fiv el ai d down t hat t he f undament al r i ght s as enshr i ned i n Part I I Ioft heConst i t ut i on arei mmut abl eand beyond t her each oft heamendat oryproce ss.Thepowerofpar l i amentt oamendanypr ovi si on i n avanandaBhar at icasebya Par t I I Io ft heCo ns t i t ut i o n wast ake na wa y .I nKes maj ori t yofsevenagai nstsi x,t heSupr emeCourthel dt hatbyArt i cl e368oft he Cons t i t ut i on,Par l i amenthas amendi ng powe r s.Butt he ame ndat or y power doesnotext end t oal t ert hebasi cst ruct ur eorf r ameworkoft heConst i t ut i on. Thebasi cf eat ur esoft heCons t i t ut i onbei ng:( i )Supr emac yoft heCons t i t ut i on; ( i i ) Republ i can and Democr at i cf orm of gover nment ;( i i i ) Secul ari sm; ( i v) Separ at i on ofpower sbet ween t hel egi sl at ur e,t heexecut i veand t hej udi ci ary; and ( v)Feder alchar act eroft heCons t i t ut i on.Supr emacyand per manencyof t heCons t i t ut i onhav et husbeenensur edbyt hepr onounce mentoft hesummi t
;<. =3>
c o ur to ft hec ount r ywi t ht her e s ul tt hatt hebas i cf e at ur e soft heCo ns t i t ut i o n ar enow bey ondt her eachofPar l i ament . Af t ermaki ngt hes eobser v at i onsc er t ai nr eas onsc anbegener al i z edwhi c hl ead t oj udi c i alac t i v i s m. Thef o l l o wi ngar es o meo ft hewe l lac c e pt e dr e as o nswhi c h compelacourtoraj udget obeact i vewhi l edi schar gi ngt hej udi ci alf unct i ons 7 as s i g ne dt ot he ne i t he rb yac o ns t i t ut i o no ra nyo t he ro r g ani cl a w. i ) NearCol l apseofr esponsi bl egover nment . i i ) Pr e s s ur eonj udi c i ar yt os t e pi nai d. i i i ) Judi c i ale nt hus i as mt opar t i c i pat ei ns o ci alr e f o r m andc hang e . i v ) Le g i s l at i v ev ac uum l e f tope n. v) Thecons t i t ut i onals c he me . vi ) Aut hor i t yt omakefinaldecl ar at i onast ov al i di t yofal aw. vi i ) Rol eofJudi ci ar yasguar di anoff undament alr i ght s. vi i i ) Publ i cconfidencei nt hej udi ci ar ye t c. I nt he1980’ st wor emarkabl edeve l opment si nt heI ndi an l egalsyst em pr ovi ded 8 a st r ong i mpet us t oj udi ci alact i vi sm i nI ndi a. Ther e was a br oade ni ng of e x i s t i nge nv i r o nme nt all a wsi nt hec ount r yandj udi c i alac t i v i t yt hr o ug h publ i c i nt er estl i t i gat i on began i nearnesti nI ndi a.Theset wodevel opment sgavemore scope t o ci t i ze ns and publ i ci nt er estgr oupst o pr osecut e a corporat i on ora TNC whi c hvi ol at ese nvi r onme nt alnor ms. I ti saknownf actt hatj udi ci alact i vi sm hasgi venussomever ygood casel aws and pat h br eaki ngj udgment s,whi ch ev en l edt or ev ol ut i onarychangesi nt he s oc i e t y ,T ode nyj udi c i alac t i v i s mt ot hec our t si st onul l i f yt hej udi c i alpr o c es s andt one g at ej us t i c e .T akeawa yj udi c i alac t i v i s m andt y r a nnywi l ls t e pi nt ofil l 9 t hevacantspace. I ti sr i g ht l ys t at e dbyf o r me rJus t i c e ,Hi da yt ual l aht hat“ T he fir stpr i nci pl et o obser vei st hatt hewi sdom oft hel aw mustbeaccept ed.A l i t t l ei ncur si on i nt ol awmaki ng i nt er st i t i al l y , as Hol mes put i t , may be per mi ssi bl e.Forot hercasest heat t ent i on ofPar l i amentand/orGove r nment 10 canbedr awnt ot heflaw. ”
Bmdutt role o9 judiciar( in the democratic s(stem o9 india judicial activism under the supreme court o9 indiaD : golden research thoughts sept E 2812D 4 by Pranay Lal and Veena Jha, “ Judicial activism and the environment in 'ndia. 'mplications 9or transnational corporations@, Bccasional paper no., report as part o9 unctad /c$s project: Cross =order ?nvironmental Fanagement 'n +ransnational Corporations 0 Fadon, ;.#., Con9erence #aper, the +hird 'nternational Con9erence o9 %ppellate Judges, p.28 at p.218. 18
Justice F. 3ida(atullah, Highways and Bye-Lanes of Justice , 1046D 2 SCC J1 at p. 5
I nI ndi a,al t hough t heact i vi sm versus r e s t r ai ntde bat ee x i s t e de v e ni nt hepr e Const i t ut i on per i od,i tdi d notvi gorousl yt akeoff t i l lt he 1970s when t he Supr eme Cour tofI ndi ai t sel fbecame ve ry act i ve .Howev er ,t he under l yi ng phi l osophi cali ssueoft her el at i onshi pbet weenmeansandendshasbeenl ong 11 debat ed i nI ndi an phi l osophy . Mahat ma Gandhiwho adv oc at e dt hat t he meansusedf orachi evi ngapart i cul arr esul tmustal sobeasaccept abl east he r e s ul ti t s e l f .Aswes hal ls e e ,t hes ag ao fj udi c i alde c i s i o nmaki ngbyt hehi g he s t cour ti nI ndi ai ndi cat es t hatj udi ci alact i vi sm or t he mer e pur sui tofends wi t houtr eg ar dt ot hemeans,hasbecomet hedomi nantappr oac hi nj udi ci al t hi nki ng. Wi t ht hi sbac kgr ound,i tbecome snec es sar yf ort heJudget oas k,l i keHaml e t , whe t her i ti s nobl er i nt he mi nd t or emai ni mper vi ous t ot he domi nant di scour se ar ound,ort ot r i m t he sai l s ofhi st hi nki ng t ot he wi nds bl owi ng ar ound. Thi s i s a ques t i on of gr eat moment , whi c h mus t haunt any consci ent i ousJudge.Tradi t i onandgoodsensedemandt hat ,i rr espect i veoft he pol i t i caldebat ear ound,t heJudgemai nt ai nsaneut r alst ancei n hi sdeci si onmaki ng,bei nggui ded onl ybyaccept ed l egalpri nci pl esand t hedi ct at esofhi s consc i ence .TheJudgebei nghuman,t hesoci alambi encei nwhi chheoper at es i sl i kel yt o affecthi sj udgment ,butt heext entt o whi ch hedi sal l ows t hi st o happendet er mi neshi smet t l e. I twasri ght l yputbyl egall umi nary,FormerJust i ce,ShriB. N Shri kri shna,i n hi s ar t i c l e Ski hatundes i r abl e conse quence s ensui ng f r om nni ng t he Cat t Judi ci alac t i vi sm ar e del ay ,bac kl og and abuse ofpubl i ci nt er es tl i t i gat i on, e xpe di e nc yand j udi c i ale r r o r ,c r e di bi l i t yofi ns t i t ut i on i sque s t i one di nc er t ai n si t uat i ons,di ver si on ofi nst i t ut i onalre sour ces f or t he purposes ot her t han c o ns t i t ut i o nal l y as s i g ne d and final l yj udi c i ala c t i v i s m i s pe r s o nal i t y dr i v e r n t hani ns t i t ut i o nal i z e dadj udi c at i on.
I MPLI CATI ONS Thel andsc apeofr ec entSupr emeCour tr ul i ngsoffe r ssomei nt er es t i ngi nsi ght s 12 i nt ot he met amorphosi s ofj udi ci alact i vi sm i nI ndi a. Mo s ts t r i ki ng l y ,t he 11
=( Justice =.A. Srikrishna, SG'AA'AH % C%+ , 2885D 4 SCC JD
12
http://www.hindu.com/2880/8/14/stories/288081452428488.htm
Supr emeCour tr ec ent l yi ss ued a not i cet ot heUni on gov er nmentse eki ngan e x pl anat i o no ft hes t e pst ake n byi tt oame l i o r a t et hepl i g hto fI ndi an s t ude nt s i n Aus t r al i a,whoha v ebe e nf ac i ngr ac i al l ymo t i v at e dat t ac ks .Fo r e i g n po l i c yi s wi del yconsi der e dt obenonj us t i fiabl e ,t hati s,c our t sc annoti nt er f er e .Ye t ,t he i nt er f er encebyI ndi an cour t shasnotwhol l ybeen condemned.Thenext ,and al mostequal l y st ri ki ng,i nst ance i s a Supr eme Cour tnot i ce quest i oni ng t he pr ol i f er at i on ofMayawat ist at ues,al l egedl y wort h cr oresofr upees,i n Ut t ar Pr a de s h.Li kef or e i g n pol i c y ,budg e t ar yal l o cat i o ns( but t e r ,g unsors t at ue s ?)ar e nonj ust i ci abl e.But j udi ci ali nt er f er ence i nt hi s mat t er t oo has not been de pr e c at e d,no ri si two r t hyofs e r i o usc e ns ur e . Howeve r ,j udi ci alact i vi sm i nI ndi ahasnow t aken on an i nt er est i ngf ace.The cour t si nI ndi a pur sue a f or m ofr ev i ew whi ch can be des cr i bed atbes tas ‘ di al ogi c’— a t er m use df amousl y by Pet erHogg and Al l i son Bushel li nt he co nt e xt oft he Canadi an Supr eme Cour t ’ s dec i s i ons.The I ndi an Supr e me Cour t ’ s gaz e has now gone bey ond t he pr ot e ct i on of t he so ci al l y and ec onomi cal l y downt r odden, and i nt ot he r eal m of publ i c admi ni s t r at i on. Howev er ,i t s opi ni ons of t en r es embl e aspi r at i ons r at her t han bi ndi ng pronounce ment s.Fore xampl e,t heSupr emeCour ti ss uedgui del i nesi n2006t o r ef orm t hepol i ceadmi ni st r at i on –whi ch i saSt at esubj ecton whi ch onl yt he St at eAs s e mbl i e sc anl e g i s l at e .Si mi l arg ui de l i ne sha v ebe e ni s s ue di nc r e as i ng l y i nl e g i s l at i v es phe r e s .Be c aus eo ft he s eo pi ni o ns ,atl e as ti nt he o r y ,e mpl o y e r s mus tnow ac tagai ns tse xualhar ass mentatt hewor kpl ace ,banks mus tbe prudent i nt hei r use of r ec ove r y agent s,and pol i ce office r s must f ol l ow r anda pr ocedur espr i ort o an arr est ,mi l dl y si mi l art ot heAmer i canMi r i ght s . ( I nI ndi a,t he yc oul d pe r hapsbecal l e d‘ Bas u’r i g ht s ,c o ns i de r i ngD. K.Basuv . ,1986) . St at eofWestBengal I nt he2G Li censescase,t heCourthel dt hatal lpubl i cr esour cesandasset sare a mat t erofpubl i ct r us tand t heycan onl y be di sposed ofi n at r anspar ent 13 manner by a publ i c auct i on t ot he hi ghes t bi dder . Thi s has l ed t ot he Pr esi dentmaki nga Ref er encet ot heCour tf ort heCour t ’ sl egaladvi ceunder Ar t i c l e143oft heCons t i t ut i on.I nt hesamecase,t heCour tse tasi det hee xper t opi ni on oft heTel ecom Regul at oryAut hori t yofI ndi a( TRAI )t osel l2G spect rum wi t houtauc t i ont ocr eat egr eat e rt e l edensi t yi nI ndi a. TheCour thasf oral lpr ac t i calpur posesdi s r e gar ded t hes epar at i on ofpower s undert heConst i t ut i on,andassumedagener alsuperv i soryf unct i onoverot her br anc hesofgov er nment s.Thet empt at i on t or ush t ot heSupr emeCour tand 1
http://indialaw(ers.wordpress.com/2812/84/8/distur$ingtrendsinjudicialactivism/
Hi ghCour t sf oranygr i evanceagai nstapubl i caut hori t yhasal sodeflect edt he pr i mary r esponsi bi l i t y of ci t i ze ns t hemsel ve s i n a r epre sent at i ve sel f gove r nment of maki ng l egi sl at or s and t he exe cut i ve r esponsi bl ef or t hei r ac t i o ns .Theans we ro f t e ng i v e nbyt hej udi c i ar yt ot hi st y peofo v e r r e ac hi st hat i ti scompel l edt ot akeupont hi st askast heot herbr anchesofgover nmenthave f ai l e di nt he i ro bl i g at i ons .On t hi ss pe c i ousj us t i fic at i on,t hepol i t i c albr a nc he s ofgover nmentmay ,byt hesamel ogi c,t akeovert hef unct i onsoft hej udi ci ary wheni thasf ai l ed,andt her ecanbenodoubtt hatt he r ear emanyar easwher e t hej udi c i ar yhasf ai l e dt ome e tt hee xpe c t at i o nsoft hepubl i cbyi t si ne ffic i e nc y andare asofcases. Thedo ct r i neo fj udi c i alac t i vi sm Jus t i ceJac kson oft heU. S.hasapt l y sai d:“ whi c hj ust i fies easy and const antr eadi ness t o setasi de dec i si ons ofot her br anc he so fGo v e r nme nti swho l l yi nc o mpat i bl ewi t haf ai t hi nde mo c r ac yandi n s of ari te nc o ur ag esa be l i e ft hatj udg ess ho ul d bel e f tt oc o r r e c tt her e sul to f publ i ci ndi ffer enc ei ti sa v i c i oust eac hi ng.”Unl esst hepar amet er s ofPI L ar e st ri ct l yf ormul at edbyt heSupr emeCourtandst ri ct l yobserved,PI Lwhi chi sso necessaryi nI ndi a,i si ndangerofbecomi ngdi ffuse,unpri nci pl ed,encr oachi ng i nt ot he f unct i ons ofot herbr anches ofgov er nmentand i neffec t i ve by i t s i ndi scri mi nat euse.
I n r ecent or der s, t he Supr eme Cour t has di r e ct ed t he mos t compl ex 14 e ng i ne e r i ng o fi nt e r l i nki ng r i v e r si nI ndi a. The Cour t has passe d or der s banni ng t he pas t i ng ofbl ac k fil m on aut omo bi l e wi ndows.On i t s own,t he Cour thast akennot i ceofBabaRamdevbei ngf or ci bl yevi ct edf r om t heRaml i l a gr oundsbyt heDel hiAdmi ni st r at i on and ce nsur ed i t .TheCour thasor der ed t hee xc l us i o no ft o ur i s t si nt hec or ear e aoft i g e rr e s er v e s .Al lt he s emanag e r i al exer ci sesbyt heCourtar ehungon t hedubi ousj uri sdi ct i onalpegofenf orci ng f undament al ri ght s under Ar t i cl e 32 of t he Const i t ut i on. I n r eal i t y , no f undame nt alr i g ht sofi ndi v i dual sora nyl e g ali s s ue sar eatal li nv o l v e di ns uc h case s.The Cour ti s onl y mov ed f orbet t ergov er nance and admi ni s t r at i on, whi c hdoe snoti nv ol v et hee xer ci seofanypr operj udi ci alf unc t i on. On t he ot her hand i ni t s act i vi st and cont r over si al i nt er pr et at i on of t he Const i t ut i on, t he Supr eme Cour tt ook away t he const i t ut i onal l y conf er r ed poweroft hePr esi dentofI ndi at o appoi ntj udgesaf t erconsul t at i on wi t ht he Chi efJust i ce,andappr opri at ed t hi spoweri nt heChi efJust i ceofI ndi aanda 16
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/distur$ingtrendsinjudicial activism/article161.ece
col l egi um off ourj udges.I n noConst i t ut i on i nt heworl di sthepowert osel ect andappoi ntj udgesc onf er r edont hej udgest hemsel ves. TheCour ti smadet hemoni t oroft heconductofi nv es t i gat i ngandpr osecut i on agenci es who ar e per cei ve dt o have f ai l ed or negl ect ed t oi nve st i gat e and pros ec ut e mi ni st er s and offici al s ofgov er nment .Cases oft hi st ype ar et he i nvest i gat i on and pr osecut i on ofmi ni st er sand offici al sbel i evedt obei nvol ved i nt heJai nHawal acase,t hef odders cam i nvol vi ngt hef ormerChi efMi ni st erof Bi har ,Lal u Pr asad Yadav ,t he TajCorr i dor case i nvol vi ng t he f ormerChi ef Mi ni st erofUt t arPr adesh,Mayawat i ,andt her ecentpr osecut i on oft heTel ecom Mi ni s t erandoffici al si nt he2G Te l ec om sc am cas ebyt heSupr emeCour t .
CONCLUSI ON The Judi ci ar y cannott ake ov ert he f unc t i ons oft he Exec ut i v e.The Cour t s t hemse l v esmus tdi spl aypr udenceand moder at i on and be consci ousoft he need f or comi t y ofi nst r ument al i t i es as basi ct o good gove r nance.Judi ci al act i vi sm has t o be wel comed and i t si mpl i cat i ons assi mi l at ed i nl et t erand spi ri t .An act i vi stCourti s sur el yf ar more effect i ve t han a l egalposi t i vi st conservat i veCourtt o pr ot ectt hesoci et y agai nstl egi sl at i veadvent uri sm and execut i vet yr anny .When ourchosen r epr esent at i veshavef ai l ed t o gi veusa we l f ar es t at e,l e ti tspr i ngf r om t heJudi c i ar y . Thepowe rofj udi ci alr e vi e wi sr ecogni z edaspar toft hebasi cs t r uc t ur eoft he I ndi an Co ns t i t ut i o n.T he ac t i v i s tr o l eo ft he Judi c i ar yi si mpl i c i ti nt hes ai d power .Judi ci alact i vi sm i sasi acybec ausewi t houtan nequa non ofdemocr al er tand enl i ght ened j udi ci ary ,t he democr acy wi l lbe r educed t o an empt y s he l l .Judi c i alac t i v i s mi ni t st o t al i t ycanno tbebanne d.I ti sobv i oust hatunde r aconst i t ut i on,af undament alf eat ur eofwhi ch i st herul eofl aw,t her ecannot be any r es t r ai ntupon j udi ci alact i vi s m i n mat t er si n whi c ht he l e gal i t y of execut i veorder sand admi ni st r at i veact i onsi squest i oned.Thecourt sar et he onl yf or um f or t hose wr onge d by admi ni s t r at i v e ex ce ss es and ex ec ut i v e ar bi t r a r i ne s s. Judi ci alac t i vi sm i snotanaber r at i on.I ti saness ent i alaspe ctoft hedynami c s 15 o fa c o ns t i t ut i o nalc o ur t . I ti s a count er maj ori t ari an check on democr acy . Judi ci alact i vi s m,howe v e r ,doesnotme angov e r nancebyt hej udi ci ar y .Judi ci al ac t i v i s m mus tal s of unc t i o nwi t hi nt hel i mi t soft hej udi c i alpr o c es s . 15
S.#. Sathe, Judicial %ctivism: +he 'ndian ?)perience, Iash. >. J. . #ol&( 820 2881D
Thej udi ci ar yi st hewe akes tbody oft hes t at e .I tbecomess t r ong onl ywhe n 16 pe opl er e pos ef ai t hi ni t . Such f ai t h const i t ut est hel egi t i macy oft heCourt and ofj udi ci alact i vi sm.Court s mustcont i nuousl y st r i ve t o sust ai nt hei r l egi t i macy .Cour t s do nothave t o bow t o publ i c pr ess ur e,butr at hert hey shoul dst andfirm agai nstpubl i cpr essur e.Whatsust ai nsl egi t i macyofj udi ci al act i vi sm i snoti t ssubmi ssi on t opopul i sm,buti t scapaci t yt owi t hst and such pr essur ewi t houts acri fici ngi mpart i al i t yand obj ect i vi t y .Court smustnotonl y bef ai r ,t he ymus tappeart obef ai r .Suc hi nar t i cul at eand di ffuse dc onsensus abo utt hei mpar t i al i t yandi nt e gr i t yoft hej udi c i ar yi st hes our c eoft heCo ur t ’ s l e gi t i mac y . Takeawayj udi c i alact i vi sm andt yr annywi l ls t epi nt ofil lt hev acantspace. Sot os um upt hej udi c i alac t i v i s mi nI ndi a,i twi l lbev e r yappr o pr i at et oq uo t e t hewordsofDr .A. S.Anand,Chi efJust i ceofI ndi awhosai d: " …. t he Supr e me Cour ti st he cust odi an of t he I ndi an Const i t ut i on and exer ci ses j udi ci al cont r ol over t he act s of bot h t he l egi sl at ur e and t he e xe cut i v e . " I woul dl i ke t o co nc l ude by s t at i ng t hat t he Cour t s ar e not abov et he Const i t ut i onandmustbeconsci ousoft heconsci enceoft hePr eambl e.
1
http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi*articleK166conte)tKwujlp
