CONSTITUTIONALISM AND JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

The concept of constitutionalism is described as the idea or pattern which focuses on the principle through
which the government derives its power and is also restricted by it. Rule of law is supreme and all the
government authorities are expected to follow it. All their powers and roles are based on the law defined. The
word constitutionalism is derived from constitution. However, there is a remarkable difference between the two.
Constitution is a rule book where laws are defined and described whereas constitutionalism is an ideology
which says that powers must be practiced under the limitations of law.

There are many definitions and theories revolving around it. However, the core features remain the same.
Constitutionalism states that law is fundamental and the government is only legitimate until it remains under the
fundamental power of law. Another core feature is that civil liberty must be protected and given equal rights.
However, there is another concept of Judicial Activism which has been debated to be in contradiction to
Constitutionalism. Black’s Law dictionary define it as “a philosophy of judicial decision making whereby
judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.” It gives
power to the judges to think and act beyond the limitations of predefined law. This includes interpretation of
laws and statutes and enhancing it for the further utilization. The sources of law have been constitution and
Judicial precedents. Therefore, it can be said that judicial activism is a method of increasing reliable and
practical sources of law. This empowers the judge to think beyond limitations with a broader perspective. The
practical application of such concept in India was first seen in the case of I. C Golak Nath and others v. State of
Punjab and another. In this case, the concept of prospective ruling was seen for the first time. The court held
that it is the duty of the court to give a wider perspective to the rules enshrined in the constitution. This is done
for the smooth running of community.

However, it is believed that judicial activism has given way too much of power and freedom to the judicial
officers and this is in contrary to the concept of Constitutionalism. There has been an on-going debate since a
long time. Therefore, it can be derived that both Constitutionalism and Judicial Activism are equally important
for better running of Judicial System. Where on one hand Constitutionalism sets limitations and avoids abuse of
power, on the other hand Judicial Activism allows to think beyond limitations and define new practical
approaches for the better running of society.