Abstract

Judicial activism is the practice of using the courts authority to examine state actions. According to article 32 and article 226 of the Indian constitution, the higher judiciary has the power to consider any legislative, executive, or administrative actions as unconstitutional and void if it does so, judicial activism sets out of balances and control the other branches of the government. It accentuates required innovation by way of a solution. In cases where the law fails to establish a balance, judicial activism allows judges to use their personal judgement. In Judicial activism, the judges are required to use their power to correct any injustice especially when the other constitutional bodies are not acting. Judicial restraint is limiting the powers of the judges to strike down a law. The apex court began to examine the judicial and structural views of the constitution in the 1970’s. the first time the Indian judiciary showed instances of judicial activism was in the case of Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala. It is a case that took place right before the declaration of the emergency. Judicial activism works in a manner such that the courts, subsequent to listening to both the sides, advance from their traditional position of decisiveness to the place of legislature and develop new legislation, new policies, and new rules. The first crucial case performing to judicial intervention through social action litigation was the Bihar courts “Hussain Khatoon v. State of Bihar” case. Taking a look at the after emergency legal action, it is evident that the supreme court has excelled and transcended legal positivism. It is time and again considered that the commencement of judicial activism is attributed to the development of public litigation and accompanying modernization of the “Locus Standi” rule.

Keywords