Judicial activism is the exercise of the power of judicial review to set aside government acts.

Generally, the phrase is

used to identify undesirable exercises of that power, but there is little agreement on which instances are undesirable.

It is governed by sociological school of jurisprudence rather than positivist school. It is commonly defined as a pract
ice in the judiciary where in judgments are delivered based on opinion rather than existing laws.
Suo Moto cognizance is when the courts in India take a case on their own. Suo Moto in India has been warranted un
der Article 32 & Article 226 of the constitution. Recently, a lot of instances can be seen where the Indian judiciary h
as taken up Suo Moto cases such as the Murthal Rape Case. Suo Moto cases in India are generally taken up by the S
upreme Court. The Indian Judiciary has been undoubtedly holding the baton for democracy for the past few years. In
numerous instances, different High Courts and the Supreme Court have risen to the occasion by taking cognizance
of a legal issue on their own and provided swift justice. Various courts in India have initiated legal proceedings on th
eir own based on media reports, telegrams and letters received by aggrieved people, taking a Suo Moto cognizance o
f the issue. Suo Moto action is when a High Court or Supreme Court on its own take control over the matter or the c
ase.

EXAMPLE
• Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, a letter written by a Journalist was addressed to the Supreme Court avouchin
g the custodial violence of women prisoners in Jail. The court treated that letter as a writ petition and took cognizanc
e of that matter and issued the opposite guidelines to the concerned authorities of the state.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the court exercised its epistolary jurisdiction, and a letter written by a prisoner
was treated as a petition. The letter supposed that the head warden atrociously inflicted pain and assaulted another p
risoner. The Court stated that the technicalities cannot stop the court from protecting the civil liberties of the individ
uals.

CRITICISM
Judicial activism has also faced criticism several times. In the name of judicial activism, the judiciary often mixes pe
rsonal bias and opinions with the law. Another criticism is that the theory of separation of powers between the three
arms of the State goes for a toss with judicial activism. Many times, the judiciary, in the name of activism, interferes
in an administrative domain, and ventures into judicial overreach.