JUDICIAL 

ACTIVISM

PROJECT REPORT: 2014

MADHAV VIDHI MAHAVIDYALAYA
(GWALIOR)

IN GUIDANCE OF:      SUBMITTED BY:

DR. MAMTA MISHRA           ANUJA SINGH
ASST.PROFESSOR LL.M. SECOND SEM
M.V.M. GWALIOR  ROLL NO. 1268213

1
2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 CHAPTER NAME  PAGE NO.

Judicial Activism  :  An Introduction 4

Defining Judicial Activism 5

Origin of Judicial Activism 6­7

Judicial Activism in India 8­10

Constitutional Position 11­12

Judicial Activism V. Judicial Restraint 13­14

Transgressing The Boundaries  15

Issues and Concerns 16

Accountability of Judiciary 17­18

Separation of Powers 19­21

Influence By Political Establishments 22

Conclusion 23­24

3
Bibliography 25

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM : AN INTRODUCTION

The   success   of   a   democracy,   especially   one   based   on   a   federal

system, depends largely on an impartial and independent judiciary
endowed with sufficient powers to administer justice. The framers of
the   Indian   Constitution,   therefore,   thought   it   fit   to   entrust   the
judiciary with vast powers. The trinity of an independent judiciary,
independent constitutional review, and the supremacy of law operate
together for the working of a constitutional government.
The   Trinity   –   Legislative,   Judiciary   and   the   Executive­is   an
accomplished   phenomena,   Harmonious   existence   is   a   theory.
Montesquieu­ a French Philosopher, believed that concentration of
power in one  person or group results in disastrous consequences.
Therfore, governmental functions shall be vested in three different
organs the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. He further
felt   that   each   organ   should   be   independent   from   others   and   they
should not interfere with each other. His principle of Separation of
Powers can be encapsulated as follows:
 Each organ should be independent of another.
 No   one   organ   should   perform   functions   that   belong   to   the
other.
For   any   of   the   two   combined   together   could   lead   to   disastrous
consequences.   For   instance   if   Judiciary   combines   with   the
Executive, it will result in judges becoming violent and oppressive.
If the Judiciary combines with the Legislature, there would be no
liberty. And if the Executive and the Legislature combine it would
lead   to   arbitrariness.   Two   prominent   constitutional   functionaries
recently expressed their concern over the role played by the Indian
Judiciary. Judiciary is not an overriding authority and no organ has

4
the right to emphasize powers of another, These assertions have, in
the   wake   of   several   apex   court   rulings,   striking   down   executive
decisions and parliamentary legislations.

DEFINING JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

According   to  Black's   Law   Dictionary,   judicial   activism   is   "a

philosophy of judicial decision­making whereby judges allow their
personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide
their   decisions,   usually   with   the   suggestion   that   adherents   of   this
philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to
ignore precedent."
 “Activism’ means “a policy of vigorous action of a philosophy or a
creative will1” or “The doctrine or policy of being active or doing
things   with   decision”.   Judicial   Activism   would   therefore   mean
taking   recourse   to   judicial   process   leading   to   judicial
pronouncements on different intricate issues it is active role played
on the part of the Judiciary.
In   the   words   of   Justice   J.S.Verma,   Judicial   Activism   must
necessarily mean “the active process of implementation of the rule
of law, essential for the preservation of functional democracy”.
According to Prof. Upendra Baxi, “Judicial Activism is an ascriptive
term. It means different things to different people.

Judicial activism describes judicial ruling suspected of being based
on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.
The   question   of   judicial   activism   is   closely   related   to
constitutional, statutory construction, and separation of powers.

5
 ORIGIN OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

The  concept   of   judicial   activism   which   is   another   name   for

innovative interpretation was not of the recent past; it was born in
1804 when Chief Justice Marshall, the greatest Judge of the English­
speaking world, decided “Marbury v. Madison1”. He observed that
the   Constitution   was   the   fundamental   and   paramount   law   of   the
nation and "it is for the court to say what the law is". He concluded
that   the   particular   phraseology   of   the   Constitution   of   the United
States confirms   and   strengthens   the   principle   supposed   to   be
essential to all written Constitutions. That a law repugnant to the
Constitution is void and that the courts as well as other departments
are bound by that instrument. If there was conflict between a law
made by the Congress and the provisions in the Constitution, it was
the duty of the court to enforce the Constitution and ignore the law.
The twin concepts of judicial review and judicial activism were thus
born.

Some   proponents   of   a   stronger   judiciary   argue   that   the   judiciary

helps   provide   checks   and   balances   and   should   grant   itself   an
expanded role to counterbalance the effects of transient majoritarian,
i.e.   there   should   be   an   increase   in   the   powers   of   a   branch   of
government which is not directly subject to the electorate, so that the
majority cannot dominate or oppress any particular minority through
its elective powers. Moreover, they argue that the judiciary strikes
down   both   elected   and   unelected   official   action,   that   in   some
instances   acts   of   legislative   bodies   reflect   the   view   the   transient

6
majority may have had at the moment of passage and not necessarily
the   view   the   same   legislative   body   may   have   at   the   time   the
legislation   is   struck   down,   that   the   judges   that   are   appointed   are
usually appointed by previously elected executive officials so that
their philosophy should reflect that of those who nominated them,
that an independent judiciary is a great asset to civil society since
corporations and the wealthy are unable to dictate their version of
constitutional   interpretation   with   threat   of   stopping   political
donations.

7
 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN INDIA

During the last two decades, judicial activism has played a major
role   in   protecting   the   rights   and   freedoms   of   individuals,   as
guaranteed under the constitution. After the landmark decision in the
Menka Gandhi’s case, courts have assumed an activist posture and
come forward to the rescue of aggrieved citizens. In a number of
cases,   subsequent   to   the   Menka   Gandhi’s   case,   the   judiciary
interpreted the constitutional provision in its wider possible meaning
to protect basic civil liberties and fundamental rights. During this
period, our judiciary developed the concept of social action litigation
and public interest litigation by discarding the traditional and self­
imposed  limitations  on  its  own  jurisdiction.   In  1975,  Justice   VR
Krishna Iyer for the first time in the Bar Council’s case advocated
the liberal interpretation of locus standi in public interest litigation.
He observed that in a developing country like India, public­oriented
litigation better fulfils the rule of law if it is to run close to the rule
of life. The concept of public interest litigation took a clearer shape
through the remarkable judgment in what is popularly known as “the
case of the judges’ transfer”. In this case,  Justice Bhagwati  said
that the traditional rule was of ancient vintage and arose during an
era when private law dominated the scene. He observed that there is
an urgent need to innovate new methods and devise new strategies
for the purpose of providing access to justice to the large masses of
people who are denied their human rights and to whom freedom and
liberty   have   no   meaning.   The   courts   have   a   duty   to   utilize   the
initiative and zeal of public­minded persons and organizations by
allowing them to act for general or group interest.

Justice Bhagwati further developed the idea of social justice through
courts in another case in which he  observed, “The time has now

8
come   when   the   courts   must   become   the   court   for   the   poor   and
struggling masses of this country. They must shed their character as
upholder of the established order and the status quo. They must be
sensitized to the need of doing justice to the large masses of people 

to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heartless society for
generations. It is through public interest litigation that problems of
poor are now coming to the forefront and the entire theatre of the
law   is   changing.   It   holds   out   great   possibilities   for   the   future.”
The Supreme Court initiated this case by converting a letter written
by  the   People’s   Union   for   Democratic   Rights.   The   letter,
addressed to one of Supreme Court judges, was based upon a report
made by a team of three social scientists who were commissioned by
the   People’s   Union   for   Democratic   Rights   for   the   purpose   of
investigating and inquiring into the condition under which workmen
were   employed   in   the   construction   work   of   various   projects
connected with the Asian Games. In this case, the Supreme Court
came   down   heavily   against   critics   of   public   interest   litigation.
It   was   observed   that   those   who   were   decrying   public   interest
litigations, did not seem to realize that the courts are not meant only
for the rich and the well­to­do, for the landlord and the gentry, for
the business magnate and the industrial tycoon but they exist also for
the poor and the downtrodden, the have­nots and the handicapped
and the half­hungry millions. Public interest litigation and judicial
activism has touched almost every aspect of life. Be it the case of
bonded  labour,   rehabilitation   of   freed   bonded  labour,   payment   of
minimum wages, protection of pavement and slum dwellers, juvenile
offenders, child labour, illegal detentions, torture and maltreatment
of   woman   in   police   lock­up,   the   implementation   of   various
provisions of the constitution, environment problems, the courts took
cognizance of each case and laid down various judgments to protect
the   basic   human   rights   of   each   and   every   member   of   society.
No   doubt   law   regulates   the   society,   but   some   time   society   also

9
regulates   law.   Changing   aspirations   of   people   also   affects   law.
Constitutions, courts and other parts of the judicial system are made
for   common   people.   Realising   the   fact   that   in   spite   of   all
constitutional   provisions   and   other   enactments,   socio­economic
justice   remained   a   distant   dream   for   the   poor   and   down­trodden,
Justice   Bhagwati   invites   judges   to   use   their   power   to   further   the
cause of social justice.

In his work “Social Action Litigation: The Indian Express” Justic
e Bhagwati observed
“Today, we find that in third world countries, there are large number
of groups which are being subjected to exploitation, injustice and
even violence. In this climate of conflict and injustice, judges have
to   play   a   positive   role   and   they   cannot   content   themselves   by
invoking the doctrine of self­restraint and passive interpretation. The
judges in India have fortunately a most potent judicial power in their
hands, namely the power of judicial review. The judiciary has to
play a vital and important role not only in preventing the remedying
abuse   and   misuse   of   power   but   also   in
eliminating exploitation and injustice.”

10
 CONSTTUTIONAL POSITION

The Constitution provides for sufficient provisions to maintain the
theory of Separation of Powers. Article 50 prescribes separation of
the Judiciary from the Executive. Articles 121 and 211 forbid the
legislature from discussing the conduct of any judge in discharge of
his duties. Articles 122 and 212 prohibit the courts from sitting in
judgement over the internal proceedings of the legislature. Article
105 (2) and 194(2)on the other hand, protect the legislators from
interference of the courts with regards their freedom of speech and
expression.
Thus   the   Constitution   of   India,   tries   its   best   to   inculcate
Montesquieu’s   theory   of  Separation  of   Powers,   but   what   actually
happens when the Judiciary actually over steps? And what exactly is
‘overstepping   by   the   judiciary’.   These   questions   have   remained
unanswered by the Constitution.
Judicial review is a significant source of Judicial Activism. One can
say   that   the   seeds   of   Judicial   Activism   were   sown   in   Judicial
Review.   Though   in   India,   the   Constitution   does   not   specifically
mention the power of Judicial Review, but it does mention that any
act   violative   of   Fundamental   Rights   can   be   declared
unconstitutional. Thus the Judiciary can override the powers of the
Legislature   through   Judicial   Review.   In   India   power   of   Judicial
Review is now considered to be a basic feature of the Constitution. 
Initially the power of Judicial review was limited to checking the
acts   or   decisions   affecting   fundamental   rights,   but   lately   the
Judiciary has also started expressing its concern in matters relating
to social, developmental and environmental issues.
It could be easily said that the Emergency of 1975 and the period
immediately   thereafter   constituted   defining   moments   for   Judicial
Activism   in   India.   The   infamous  ADM   Jabalpur   v   Shukla,
popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case was decided and was a

11
blow   to   the   civil   liberties  in   India.   The   suspension  of   Article   21
prohibited the challenging of any detentions made during that time.
The Constitution was also amended to permit the excesses of the
Emergency.   The   Decision   was   strongly   condemned   and   “Judicial
Activism” had a strong moral basis after the Emergency.

12
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM V. JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

Having understood the meaning of the word Judicial Activism, it
would be legitimate to say that the line between the terms Judicial
Activism and Judicial Over Reach is difficult to draw. As the former
Chief Justice of India, Justice Ahmadi has stated “Sometimes this
Activism   has   the   potential   to   transcend   the   borders   of   Judicial
Review and turn into populism and excessivism”. 
Thus to one judge it maybe Activism while to the other it may be
Over Reach. Or to ones who may agree with the Judgement it maybe
Activism   and   to   those   who   disagree   it   maybe   Over   Reach.   It   is
difficult   to   lay   down   strict   guidelines   as   to   when   it   would   be
Activism and when the Judiciary might be over reaching. But if we
have a look at some of the provisions of our Constitution like Article
32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies in the Supreme Court directly
for enforcement of all fundamental rights), Article 226 (power of
high   courts   to   issue   certain   writs)   and   Article   227   (power   of
superintendence over all courts and tribunals by the high court), just
goes   to   show   that   the   basic   document   of   governance­   our
Constitution   has   provided   for   these   overreaching   provisions.   The
Constitution has placed that responsibility of Judicial Governance in
the Judges of higher judiciary.
Judiciary is that branch of the government with greatest institutional
capacity   to   enforce   the   legal   norms   in   a   disinterested   way.   The
Legislature   and   the   Executive   because   of   their   vested   interest   of
seeking   re­election   are   prone   to   ignore   constitutional   limits   to
pamper the electorate.
Following   are   the   reasons   for   justifying   the   law   making   of   the
Judiciary :
 Judges   are   fit   candidates   to   make   law   since   the   rational
dialectic comes naturally to common law judge

13
  Judicial   decisions   stand   and   fall   on   the   strength   of   their
reasons, and the judicial law making role is more interactive
and broad based than is usually assumed.
 Further,   benefit   of  such  law   making   is   that   it   provokes   the
legislature to act, in which case legislature maybe persuaded to
replace the ad hoc legislation with more comprehensive and
proper legislation.
 A great strength of the Judiciary in law making was that it is
not elected and so not beholden to vote banks.
 Finally  he   gives  a  constitutional  justification,  that   judges  in
India are bound by their oath as Judges to play an active role
in law making

Judicial  Activism   in  a  modern  democratic  set  up  is to  be   looked

upon   as   an   agency   to   curb   legislative   adventurism   and   executive
tyranny   by   enforcing   Constitutional   limits.   Approach   to   Judicial
Activism could be either negative or affirmative.

14
 TRANSGRESSING THE BOUNDRIES

This  intolerance  to  the  abuse  of  Judicial  Activism  had  long been
cumulating.   The   Indian   Courts,   apparently,   have   forgotten   their
place   in   the   Constitutional   arrangement.   They   have   flagrantly
breached   the   principle   of   Separation   of   Powers.   As   pointed   out
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. S. Verma, the former CJI, in his Dr.
K.L.   Dubey   Lecture the   Judiciary   has   intervened   to   question   a
'mysterious car' racing down the Tughlaq Road in Delhi, allotment
of   a   particular   bungalow   to   a   Judge,   specific   bungalows   for   the
Judges,   pool,   monkeys   capering   in   colonies,   stray   cattle   on   the
streets, clearing public conveniences, levying congestion charges at
peak hours at airports with heavy traffic, etc. under the threat of use
of contempt power to enforce compliance of its orders. Recently, the
Courts   have   apparently,   if   not   clearly,   strayed   into   the   executive
domain   or   in   matters   of   policy.   use   and   misuse   of   ambulances,
requirements   for   establishing   a   world   class   burns   ward   in   the
hospital, the kind of air Delhi ties breathe, begging in public, the use
of   sub­ways,   the   nature   of   buses   we   board,   the   legality   of
constructions in Delhi, identifying the buildings to be demolished,
the  size  of  speed­breakers  on  roads,  auto­rickshaw  over­charging,
growing frequency of road accidents and enhancing of road fines etc.

15
 ISSUES AND CONCERNS

The   following   are   the   main   issues   or   areas   of   concern   with   an

activist Judiciary­
 Where   the   Judiciary  interferes   with  the   functions   clearly   of
administrative   or   legislative   nature,   in   such   cases,   is   the
Judiciary responsible / accountable to anyone for the discharge
of   such   functions   and   what   are   constitutional   and   legal
sanctions   behind   such   orders   made   and   directions   given   by
courts, by way of Judicial Activism?
 dilution of the theory of Separation of Powers is inadvertent
when there is an activist Judiciary. The critics believe that it
goes against the Constitution.
 Judicial Activism could be used by the current day political
establishments to get their interests protected. And thus there
may be misuse of the Judicial Process.

16
 ACCOUNTABILITY OF JUDICIARY

One of the main concerns for the critics of Judicial Activism is that
the law making done  by judges is no good till  it  is brought into
effect. The Law making organ of the government ­the Legislature
has   the   means   of   making   laws   and   bringing   them   into   effect,
unfortunately   the   Judiciary   does   not.   So   what   happens   when   the
Judiciary makes a law but fails to effectively implement it because
of lack of means to do so? 
S.P   Sathe  in  his   book  Judicial   Activism   in   India­Transgressing
Borders and Enforcing Limits  makes a difference between Judicial
Law making in the ‘Realist Sense’ and ‘Non Realist Sense’. He says
that Judicial Law making in the realist sense is what the Court does
when it expands the meanings of the words ‘personal liberty’ or due
process   of   law’   or   ‘freedom   of   speech   and   expression’.   When
however the Court lays down guidelines for inter­country adoption,
against sexual harassment of working women at the work­place, or
abolition of child labour, it is not judicial law making in the realist
sense but amounts to legislating like a legislature. Sathe terms this as
judicial excessivism. 
It is when such law making is undertaken by the Judiciary that the
question   of   how   to   implement   the   law   arises.   If   the   Legislature
passes legislation to the effect, it would be a picture perfect scenario.
But when the Legislature refuses to take an action, there is a vacuum
that’s created between the law pronounced in the Judgement and its
actual implementation. A court is not equipped with the skills and
competence   to   discharge   functions   that   essentially   belong   to   the
other co­ordinate organs of the government.
The second question that arises is whether such legislation by the
Court is desirable?­ this can be answered in context with Separation
of Powers Doctrine, But the desirability of such a legislation can be
contested vis a vis the fact that such law making by the court might

17
not see all future requirements and might have been made without
taking   into   consideration   various   viewpoints.   For   e.g.   Vishakha’s
case, where guidelines against sexual harassment at work were laid
down.   It   took   the   Legislature   over   a   decade   to   contemplate
Legislation to the effect. The Court did lay down the guidelines, but
only the Legislature had to think through what would happen in case
of breach of such guidelines, what would be the penalties that would
be   imposed,   what   would   mean   by   the   term   ‘sexual   harassment’,
whether   only   women   could   be   liable   to   be   sexually   harassed   at
workplaces and many such concerns. Thus the discussion boils down
to the basic question of what laws, principles would be applicable to
the Judiciary in deciding matters which are essentially pertaining to
other organs of the states?   And what is the method or procedure
provided by the Constitution or any law for the enforcement of such
orders passed by the courts?
The danger of Judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without the
possibility of adequate enforcement will, in the ultimate analysis, be
counter productive and undermine the credibility of the institution.
When laws that are pronounced cannot be implemented, the entire
process of making such laws becomes a sham.

18
 SEPERATION OF POWERS

Separation   of   Powers   doctrine   as   envisaged   by   Montesquieu   has

been held as one of the basic features of our Constitution. There
could be five categories of Judicial Action which could be further
categorised into Activism and Excessivism­

 Minimal Judicial action and literal interpretation :  Under
this  the  Judiciary  can traverse  only territory  demarcated  for
them by the legislature and the executive, and as such there is
no controversy, neither there is any scope of any controversy.
 Creative or purpose interpretation : for instance expanding
the meaning of certain terms.
 The   Oversight   Function   over   the   Executive  :   Executive
action or malfunction, Filling in gaps and exercising oversight
over the executive inaction.
 The   Oversight   Function   over   the   Legislature:   Making
common   law,   ad   hoc   legislation   where   legislature   fails   to
legislate,   or   there   are   lacunae   in   existing   legislation   and
passing orders and directions and reviewing functioning of the
legislature.
 Creative   interpretation  which   amounts   to   rewriting   the
Constitution.
There is no straight jacket formula which will help in arriving at a
conclusion that Judiciary has overstepped or it has been well within
its   limits.   A   case,   how   decided   is   dependent   on   how   a   judge
perceives it and integrates his wisdom with the law of the land to
arrive at a conclusion. So there is no objectivity but only subjectivity
that becomes a deciding factor to determine whether the Doctrine
has been diluted or not.
Glaring examples of Judiciary overstepping its limits and stepping in
to the area of the executive has been orders passed  by Honourable

19
Delhi High Court on subjects ranging from age and other criteria for
nursery admissions, unauthorised schools , begging in public, auto
rickshaw overcharging, size of speed breakers on the road. These are
clearly   policy   areas,   where   the   Judiciary   has   interfered   and
legislated.
It   is   believed   that   the   framers   of   our   Constitution   took   care   to
provide for an independent and impartial Judiciary as the interpreter
of the Constitution and as the custodian of the rights of the citizens
through the process of Judicial Review, which permits the Judiciary
to interpret laws but not lay them down. Judicial review is much
stricter a concept, whereas Judicial Activism, as the name suggests is
much   wider   in   scope.   The   framers,   it   is   true,   only   permitted   to
enquire   into   any   legislation   or   an   executive   action.   But   Judicial
Activism tends to hijack the functions of the other organs and act
upon it.
The question then arises is that why would Judiciary overstep? And
the answer to this is given by Sathe very clearly­ 
‘Those Indians who finding that the legislatures and the executive
s   are   not   responding   to   their   grievances   turn   to   courts   for
protection   against   injustice   from   a   class­structured   polity,   and
secure some relief, however paltry, have begun to look to the Court
as their own choice. Sathe further adds that ‘Judicial process is
expensive dilatory and technical and if it is preferred despite such
inherent defects, it is only because the other avenues of redressal
have become ineffective and unreliable.’ 
This is how the entire concept of Public Interest Litigation came up
and it sprouted from nowhere but from an Activist Judiciary.
Having   stated   the   reasons   for   the   Judiciary   overstepping,   the
pertinent question here is whether this overstepping is diluting the
Doctrine and thus being contrary to the Constitution? The question
can be answered in the light of the following parameters­

20
  True   Constitution,   although   makes   separate   provisions   for
three  organs of the state,  does not place them  in watertight
compartments. 
   The   Constitution   by   virtue   of   Article   142   gives   extensive
powers to the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to
pass any decrees or make any orders for carrying out justice.
As Justice Vivian Bose has described this power granted by
Article 142 as the ‘flaming sword’ in an elegant prose­
“We have upon us the whole armour of the Constitution and walk
henceforth in its enlightened ways, wearing the breast plate of its
protecting   provisions   and   flashing   the   flaming   sword   of   its
inspiration”
The   Constitution   instead   of   putting   the   organs   into   watertight
compartments , gives them a leeway to move around , especially the
Judiciary by way of Article 142 and by holding Judicial Review as
the basic feature of the Constitution. The issue then is not whether
diluting the Doctrine is contrary to the Constitution, but how far can
the doctrine be diluted or what are the permissible limits of such
dilution.   The   content   of   Judicial   Power   is   not   defined   in   our
Constitution. True the Judiciary cannot cross the line of separation to
the   extent   that   it   usurps   the   powers   of   the   other   organs.   But   the
above mentioned guidelines by the Courts are examples of instances
where the legislature did not legislate at all. And also the guidelines
laid down by the Judiciary become the law of the land only when,
even after having given such “GUIDELINES”, the legislature fails
to take any step to fill in the gap. Failure of Legislature to act even
after   having   been   given   guidelines   cannot   be   held   against   the
Judiciary under the garb of diluting the Doctrine of Separation of
Powers.

21
INFLUENCE BY POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENTS
 
A judicial decision either stigmatises or legitimises a decision of the 
legislature or the executive. judicial decision needs to be neither 
politically motivated, nor politically inclined, since it is through its 
decisions that the court changes the existing power relations, judicial
activism is bound to be political in nature. Through its decisions the 
constitutional court becomes an important power centre of 
democracy. Thus a politicised judicial pronouncement not only 
strikes at the roots of the democracy but a tainted judiciary can never
do justice.
It is natural for the critics of Judicial Activism to fear an influence of
the current political establishment on the Judiciary. 
A very glaring example has been the entire period of emergency of 
1975 when the Judiciary was almost controlled by the Legislature. 
The emergency brought in severe restrictions on an individual liberty
and judicial review.
The purpose is to depict lucidly how the judiciary, if does not 
practise self­restraint can be a puppet in the hands of the Legislature.
Though the irony is that on the face of it, it seemed, in the above 
case, that the Judiciary directed the Legislature, but analysing it one 
realises that the Legislature actually, through the judicial process, 
sorted the matter in its own interests.

22
 CONCLUSION

As we can see the Doctrine of Separation of Powers runs as a thread
in all the major areas of concern discussed above. In a way it is
actually the Doctrine which raises a major concern and the other
concerns flow out from it. Be it the infrastructure missing for the
Judiciary   to   implement   the   laws   or   whether   the   Judiciary   is
influenced by the political establishment of the day, Separation of
Powers is at the root. And when exactly does the Judiciary dilutes
the doctrine and crosses the limits is not defined.  
If the intention of the framers of the Constitution was to not let the
Judiciary legislate, it could have placed all three organs in separate
water tight compartments, which it has very clearly not. Even the
framers of the Constitution intended to give space to the Judiciary to
move   around   and   about   the   line   of   separation.   Though   there   are
examples   of   the   Legislature   exercising   the   Judicial   Power­   for
instance   in   the   disputes   arising   out   of   the   10 th  Schedule   of   the
Constitution. And similarly the Executive while exercising statutory
and discretionary powers takes up adjudicatory role and also makes
laws   by   way   of   subordinate   legislation   or   by   promulgation   of
Ordinances in terms of Article 123 and 213 of the Constitution. But
it is only the Judiciary which is by way of Article 142 given wide
powers to pass orders or decrees in furtherance of Justice. That’s the
trust that the framers have placed in the higher Judiciary. And such a
trust has to come with responsibility. Because without responsibility
such trust can become tyrannical and the consequences a havoc for a
democracy.
The legitimacy of the Court and Judicial Activism is derived from
the faith that people repose in the Judiciary and thus Courts have to
continuously strive to maintain their legitimacy.   Also one has to
understand that Judges after all are human beings and to err is only

23
human. An activist Judge has to be prepared to take criticism of his
judgements. This is an important tool to keep a check on the fact that
the trust that the framers of the Constitution have put in the Judiciary
of the country, is respected and is maintained with responsibility.
Justice Y.K Sabharwal said in an interview
“When   the   Supreme   Court   declares   that   executive   and   the
legislature   has   exceeded   its   limits   and   crossed   province   the
judgement is a decision on behalf of “We the people of India,” to
whom the legislature and the executive are accountable”
Judicial Activism provides a safety valve in a democracy. Just a few
concerns   need   to   be   addressed   so   as   to   prevent   Judiciary   from
usurping the powers of the other organs. And instead of accusing
Judiciary of Over reach, a mechanism to concretise such guidelines
into legislations actively, should be devised. The panacea for the so
called   evil   ‘over­reach’   is   with   the   Judiciary   itself   and   ‘self   –
restraint’ is the best form of keeping a check on itself.
To conclude quoting a few lines ­
“That   plants   slowly   nurtured   by   judicial   craftsmanship   have
grown into sturdy trees and have blossomed with colourful and
fragrant   flowers.   Judicial   Activism   has   added   much   needed
oxygen   to   a   gigantic   democratic   experiment   in   India   by   the
alchemy of judico­photosynthesis”

24
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCE

 S.P.Sathe , book on Judicial activism
 Fali.S.Nariman, Before Memory Fades­An Autobiography
 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – Judicial Activism
 Yojna magzine

SECONDARY SOURCE

 Satyabrata Sinha, “Judicial Activism: Its Evolution and 
Growth”
 P.P.Rao, Judicial Activism “Its Positive and Negative 
Aspects” 
 Prof D Banerjia , Judicial Activism­Dimensions and 
Directions
 DR K.N Katju Memorial Lecture on ‘Separation of Powers 
and Judicial Activism in India’

25