The judiciary in India has often found itself at the crossroads of proactive intervention and deliberate restraint, continually redefining constitutional governance while navigating the delicate boundaries of separation of powers. Central to this role is the power of judicial review, a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework that allows courts to examine the validity of legislative and executive actions. Evolving from its roots in colonial-era precedents to its explicit recognition in the Indian Constitution, judicial review has empowered the judiciary to safeguard fundamental rights, check governmental excesses, and uphold constitutional supremacy. This paper, titled "Comparative Analysis of Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint in India," critically examines the evolving role of the Indian judiciary in interpreting the Constitution, broadening the scope of fundamental rights, and its increasing involvement in policy matters traditionally within the executive and legislative domains. By scrutinizing pivotal court rulings, doctrinal shifts, and cross-jurisdictional comparisons, the study explores whether expansive judicial interventions compromise democratic accountability or if excessive restraint risks judicial abdication. By evaluating the socio-political consequences, and institutional legitimacy of these approaches, the research seeks to determine an optimal balance that upholds constitutionalism without undermining democratic governance.
