👉 Judicial Activism in India: Concept, Significance & Balancing Justice with Governance

Judicial Activism in India: Balancing Justice and Governance

1. Introduction

Judicial activism represents a dynamic and evolving facet of the Indian legal system, where the judiciary proactively interprets the Constitution and laws to safeguard citizens' rights, promote justice, and address societal issues. Moving beyond its traditional role of merely adjudicating disputes, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, has often intervened to fill legislative or executive voids, ensuring constitutional principles are upheld and governance failures are rectified.

This transformative approach, while celebrated for fostering social change and protecting fundamental rights, also sparks crucial debates concerning democratic accountability, the delicate balance of power, and the potential for judicial overreach. This comprehensive note aims to delve into the concept, evolution, constitutional underpinnings, landmark judgments, contemporary relevance, and critical analysis of judicial activism in India, providing a structured resource for UPSC aspirants, law students, and researchers.

2. Foundational Concepts

2.1. Defining Judicial Activism

Judicial activism refers to a judicial philosophy where courts take an assertive role in interpreting and enforcing laws, often stepping into areas traditionally reserved for the legislature or executive. It involves decisions that go beyond legal precedents and encompass a broader interpretation of constitutional provisions to address social, economic, and political issues. The term was first coined by American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947.

Key characteristics of Judicial Activism:

• Proactive Interpretation: Courts actively interpret the Constitution and laws to achieve justice, rather than strictly adhering to literal interpretations.
• Safeguarding Rights: A primary goal is to protect and expand the fundamental rights of citizens, especially marginalized communities.
• Addressing Governance Failures: The judiciary steps in when the executive or legislature fails to perform its duties, creating a void that the courts aim to fill.
• Influencing Policy: Judges may make decisions that have a broader impact on society, shaping public policy in areas like environmental protection, human rights, and social justice.

2.2. Judicial Review vs. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach

It is crucial to distinguish between these interconnected yet distinct concepts:

• Judicial Review: This is the constitutional power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. If a law or order is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the courts can declare it unconstitutional and void (ultra vires). Judicial review is explicitly provided under Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Indian Constitution. It forms the constitutional basis for judicial activism.

• Judicial Activism: As defined above, it is the proactive and assertive exercise of the power of judicial review to address societal issues, protect rights, and compel other branches of government to fulfill their constitutional duties. It goes beyond merely striking down unconstitutional laws to actively shaping policy and ensuring accountability.

• Judicial Overreach: This term describes instances where the judiciary exceeds its boundaries, interfering with functions traditionally carried out by the executive or legislature. It is considered an undesirable outcome of judicial activism where courts may begin issuing directions in policy-making or administrative matters without sufficient legal basis or democratic accountability, thereby disrupting the separation of powers.

Table 1: Differentiating Judicial Review, Activism, and Overreach

3. Historical and Constitutional Background

3.1. Origins and Evolution in India

The seeds of judicial activism in India were sown post-independence, though it gained significant momentum after the Emergency period (1975-1977).

• Early Years (1950-1970): Classical Judiciary: In the initial decades, the Indian judiciary adopted a more traditional, technocratic approach, primarily focusing on interpreting laws. It generally exercised judicial restraint, respecting parliamentary supremacy. However, early challenges to constitutional amendments (e.g., 1st and 17th Amendments concerning property rights) set the stage for future assertiveness.
• Post-Emergency Period (1975-1977 onwards): The Rise of Activism: The Emergency period, during which the judiciary's independence was severely tested (e.g., ADM Jabalpur case), served as a turning point. The judiciary sought to re-establish its credibility and independence, leading to a more assertive stance.
  • Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A major milestone was the liberalization of locus standi (the right to bring an action in court). The introduction of PIL (also known as Social Action Litigation or SAL) in the late 1970s and early 1980s by judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati revolutionized access to justice. It allowed individuals or groups, even if not directly affected, to approach courts in the public interest, transforming the judiciary into a vehicle for social change.
  • Expansion of Article 21: The expansive interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) became a cornerstone of judicial activism, including rights to health, environment, education, livelihood, and privacy.
• 1990s and 2000s: Expansion into Governance: This phase saw the judiciary expanding its intervention into governance matters, issuing directions on environmental protection, anti-corruption, electoral reforms, and administrative accountability.

3.2. Constitutional Basis

While the term "judicial activism" is not explicitly mentioned, it derives legitimacy from several constitutional provisions:

• Article 13 (Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights): This article explicitly provides for the power of judicial review, declaring laws inconsistent with fundamental rights as void.
• Article 32 (Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part): Empowers individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It is considered a cornerstone of judicial activism and the "very soul of the Constitution" by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
• Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs): Grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights, making its scope broader than Article 32.
• Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): Its dynamic and expansive interpretation by the Supreme Court to include a wide array of implied rights (e.g., right to clean environment, dignified life, education, privacy) has been central to judicial activism.
• Article 142 (Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.): This extraordinary power allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for "doing complete justice" in any pending matter. It enables the court to fill legislative gaps and address exceptional circumstances, often seen as a significant enabler of judicial activism.
• Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV): Although non-justiciable, courts have often used DPSP to interpret fundamental rights and issue directives, thereby enforcing them indirectly.

3.3. Amendments and their Implications

Various constitutional amendments have shaped the relationship between the judiciary and other branches, influencing the scope of judicial activism:

• 1st Amendment (1951) & 17th Amendment (1964): Introduced to bypass inconvenient Supreme Court rulings, particularly regarding property rights, by excluding certain laws from judicial review through the Ninth Schedule.
• 24th Amendment (1971): Affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, in response to judicial decisions like Golaknath case.
• 25th Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C, protecting laws implementing Directive Principles from challenge on grounds of violating Articles 14, 19, or 31. This was an attempt to assert parliamentary supremacy over fundamental rights.
• 42nd Amendment (1976): Enacted during the Emergency, it significantly curtailed judicial review powers, made the DPSP superior to Fundamental Rights, and explicitly stated that constitutional amendments could not be questioned in any court.
• 44th Amendment (1978): Passed by the Janata government, it largely reversed the anti-democratic provisions of the 42nd Amendment, restoring some of the judiciary's powers and the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.

4. Institutional Framework & Functions of Judicial Activism

Judicial activism operates within the framework of the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts.

4.1. Mechanisms of Judicial Activism

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The most significant instrument, allowing any public-spirited individual or organization to seek legal remedy on behalf of an aggrieved group or for a public cause. PILs have addressed a vast array of issues from environmental degradation, bonded labor, custodial deaths, to human rights violations.
• Suo Motu Actions: Courts can initiate proceedings on their own motion (suo motu) based on newspaper reports, letters, or public complaints concerning grave public concern.
• Expansive Interpretation of Rights: Broadening the scope of fundamental rights (especially Article 21) to encompass new dimensions like the right to clean environment, health, education, livelihood, and privacy.
• Issuing Guidelines/Directions: In the absence of specific legislation, courts have issued detailed guidelines and directions to the executive to fill legislative vacuums. A prime example is the Vishaka Guidelines.
• Judicial Innovations: Developing new doctrines and principles (e.g., Basic Structure Doctrine, Absolute Liability, Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle) to adapt the Constitution to changing societal needs.

4.2. Reasons for the Rise of Judicial Activism

Several factors have contributed to the judiciary's active role:

• Failure of Executive and Legislature: In many instances, the perceived inefficiency, inaction, corruption, and unaccountability of the executive and legislative branches have compelled the judiciary to intervene.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary acts as a guardian of fundamental rights, especially for the marginalized, who often lack access to justice.
• Legislative Vacuum: When there is an absence of clear laws on critical issues, courts step in to provide guidelines or temporary frameworks.
• Public Confidence: The judiciary generally enjoys higher public trust compared to other branches of government, leading citizens to seek redressal from courts.
• Constitutional Provisions: Articles like 32, 226, and 142 provide expansive powers that facilitate an activist approach.
• Judicial Enthusiasm: The vision and commitment of individual judges have significantly shaped the trajectory of judicial activism.

5. Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases

Indian judicial history is replete with landmark judgments that exemplify judicial activism.

• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. This decision, though later overturned, marked an early assertion of judicial power.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This monumental case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot alter the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution (e.g., secularism, democracy, federalism, judicial review). This judgment definitively established judicial supremacy in safeguarding the constitutional framework.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court gave a highly expansive interpretation to Article 21, holding that the "procedure established by law" must be "just, fair, and reasonable" (akin to 'due process of law' in the USA). This case laid the foundation for subsequent activist interpretations of Article 21 to include various unarticulated rights.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (First Judges' Case): This case is pivotal for liberalizing locus standi, allowing public-spirited individuals or groups to file PILs, thereby opening the floodgates for judicial activism through PIL.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Considered the first major PIL, it highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails for extended periods. The court ordered their release, recognizing the right to speedy trial as a fundamental right.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978, 1980): Expanded prisoners' rights, laying down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and ensure humane treatment, recognizing that prisoners retain fundamental rights.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (various cases, e.g., 1986, 1987, 1991, 1997): A series of environmental PILs led to significant directions on air and water pollution, vehicular emissions, and hazardous industries. The court introduced principles like "Polluter Pays" and "Precautionary Principle."
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Recognized the "right to livelihood" as an integral part of the "right to life" under Article 21, protecting slum dwellers from arbitrary eviction.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): In the absence of a specific law, the Supreme Court formulated comprehensive guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace, which later formed the basis for the POSH Act, 2013.
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998): The court issued directions for strengthening the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to ensure accountability in corruption cases, impacting administrative governance.
• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA case, 2014): Recognized transgender persons as the "third gender" with all fundamental rights, upholding the right to self-identify one's gender.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, significantly broadening its application.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 of the IPC, emphasizing rights to privacy, dignity, and equality.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized adultery (Section 497 IPC), reinforcing gender equality.

6. Contemporary Relevance & Criticisms

6.1. Arguments in Favour of Judicial Activism

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: In a country with pervasive socio-economic disparities, the judiciary often serves as the most accessible forum for justice, especially for the vulnerable and marginalized.
• Accountability and Good Governance: It acts as a vital check on arbitrary or corrupt actions by the executive and legislature, ensuring they operate within constitutional bounds.
• Social Transformation: Activist courts have played a crucial role in promoting progressive reforms in gender justice, environmental protection, and minority rights, shaping public discourse.
• Filling Legislative Vacuum: When the legislature is slow or fails to enact necessary laws, judicial intervention can provide interim guidelines or push for legislative action.
• Ensuring Constitutional Supremacy: By reviewing laws and actions, it ensures the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.

6.2. Criticisms and Concerns (Judicial Overreach)

Despite its positive contributions, judicial activism faces significant criticisms, often blurring into the concept of judicial overreach:

• Violation of Separation of Powers: Critics argue that judicial activism, especially when it becomes overreach, infringes upon the doctrine of separation of powers, where distinct functions are allocated to the legislature (law-making), executive (implementation), and judiciary (interpretation). This can lead to "judge-made laws" and the judiciary performing roles traditionally reserved for other branches.
• Lack of Democratic Accountability: Judges are appointed, not elected, raising concerns about their democratic legitimacy when they formulate policy or issue broad directions. Elected representatives are directly accountable to the people.
• Undermining Legislative Authority: When courts issue specific directions or legislate "from the bench," it can undermine the authority and confidence of the legislature.
• Overburdening the Judiciary: Taking on policy-making or administrative functions can lead to an increased backlog of cases, diverting resources from core judicial functions and delaying justice delivery.
• Judicial Tyranny/Despotism: Concerns are raised about the judiciary imposing its own preferences or personal views in the guise of activism, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions.
• Lack of Expertise: Judges may lack the technical expertise required for complex policy-making and administrative matters (e.g., economic policy, environmental regulations).
• Financial Implications: Judicial directives sometimes have significant financial implications for the state, which should ideally be determined by the executive, which controls public exchequer.
• Recent Examples of Debate:
  • Supreme Court's directive on the timeline for Presidential assent to state Bills reserved by Governors.
  • Directions on liquor sales near national highways.
  • Mandating playing of National Anthem in cinema halls (later modified).

Flowchart: The Fine Line - Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach

Explanation: This flowchart illustrates the progression from a governance issue to judicial intervention. If the intervention is aimed at interpreting laws, upholding rights, and filling legislative gaps within legitimate judicial functions, it constitutes Judicial Activism, leading to positive outcomes. However, if it transgresses into policy-making or administrative domains, it becomes Judicial Overreach, leading to constitutional imbalance and criticism.

7. Comparative Analysis with Global Models

Judicial activism is not unique to India, but its manifestation and intensity vary across democracies.

• India: Characterized by a highly proactive approach, particularly through PIL, the Indian judiciary has often played a transformative role in social issues, environmental protection, and human rights. This assertiveness is partly attributed to the constitutional framework that allows for expansive judicial review and the "doing complete justice" mandate of Article 142. The "procedure established by law" under Article 21 was interpreted as "due process of law" by the Supreme Court in the Maneka Gandhi case, broadening its scope.

• United States: The concept of judicial activism originated here. The U.S. Supreme Court, through landmark decisions (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education on racial segregation, Roe v. Wade on abortion rights), has significantly influenced civil rights and social issues. The "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment has been a powerful tool for judicial intervention, giving the Supreme Court broad latitude in protecting individual rights. However, debates about judicial activism vs. restraint are prominent, often linked to the political leanings of judges and constitutional interpretation philosophies (originalism vs. living constitution).

• United Kingdom: Traditionally known for parliamentary supremacy, judicial activism in the UK has historically been less pronounced than in India or the USA. The establishment of the UK Supreme Court in 2009 has, however, seen a more assertive role, especially concerning human rights (under the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights). Judicial review ensures government decisions comply with the law, but courts are generally more deferential to Parliament's legislative authority.

Table 2: Comparative Glimpse of Judicial Activism

8. Conclusion & Summary

Judicial activism in India has undoubtedly played a crucial role in safeguarding constitutional values, protecting fundamental rights, and addressing governance deficits, especially in areas where the executive and legislature have faltered. It has fostered a more responsive and pro-people judiciary, giving a voice to the voiceless through instruments like Public Interest Litigation.

However, the expansive exercise of judicial power also poses challenges to the principle of separation of powers, raising concerns about judicial overreach and democratic accountability. The judiciary, while acting as a corrective mechanism, must also exercise self-restraint (judicial restraint) to maintain the delicate institutional balance essential for a healthy democracy.

The path forward lies in a harmonious functioning of all three organs of the state, where Parliament legislates effectively, the Executive governs transparently and accountably, and the Judiciary intervenes sparingly yet decisively when constitutional principles or fundamental rights are genuinely threatened, rather than encroaching upon policy-making domains.

Key Takeaways:

• Judicial activism is the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting law and enforcing justice, particularly through PIL.
• It is distinct from judicial review (power to check constitutionality) and judicial overreach (transgression into legislative/executive domains).
• Key constitutional articles supporting it are 13, 21, 32, 226, and 142.
• Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, M.C. Mehta, and Vishaka exemplify its impact.
• It protects rights and promotes good governance but faces criticism regarding separation of powers and democratic accountability.
• Striking a balance between activism and restraint is crucial for democratic governance.

9. Practice Questions & Answers

9.1. Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. Which of the following is NOT a constitutional basis for judicial activism in India? a) Article 32 b) Article 226 c) Article 142 d) Article 368

Correct Answer: d) Article 368 Explanation: Article 368 deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure thereof. While judicial interpretations (like the Basic Structure Doctrine) have limited this power, Article 368 itself is not considered a constitutional basis for judicial activism, which is primarily about the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting and enforcing laws and rights. Articles 32, 226, and 142 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to enforce rights and do complete justice, thus facilitating judicial activism.

2. The concept of 'Public Interest Litigation' (PIL) in India primarily originated due to the liberalization of which legal principle? a) Doctrine of Stare Decisis b) Principle of Locus Standi c) Doctrine of Res Judicata d) Principle of Natural Justice

Correct Answer: b) Principle of Locus Standi Explanation: PIL gained momentum due to the relaxation of the traditional rule of locus standi, which earlier required that only a person directly aggrieved could approach the court. With PIL, any public-spirited individual or organization can approach the court on behalf of others or for a public cause.

3. Which landmark Supreme Court judgment introduced the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' of the Indian Constitution? a) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India b) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India c) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala d) Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India

Correct Answer: c) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Explanation: The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law, where the Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

4. Judicial overreach is often criticized for violating which fundamental principle of democratic governance? a) Rule of Law b) Judicial Review c) Separation of Powers d) Constitutionalism

Correct Answer: c) Separation of Powers Explanation: Judicial overreach occurs when the judiciary intervenes in matters traditionally falling under the executive or legislative domains, thereby disturbing the delicate balance of powers among the three branches of government.

5. The Vishaka Guidelines, formulated by the Supreme Court in 1997, primarily addressed which issue? a) Right to clean environment b) Prevention of custodial torture c) Prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace d) Right to speedy trial

Correct Answer: c) Prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace Explanation: In the absence of specific legislation, the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace. These guidelines later formed the basis for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

9.2. Scenario-Based Questions

Scenario 1: The Parliament enacts a law that significantly restricts freedom of speech and expression, citing national security concerns. A group of journalists files a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of this law. Question: How might the Supreme Court, exhibiting judicial activism, approach this scenario, considering its past pronouncements? Answer: The Supreme Court, exhibiting judicial activism, would likely approach this scenario by:

1. Expansive Interpretation of Article 19(1)(a): The court would interpret the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) broadly, emphasizing its integral role in a democratic society.
2. Strict Scrutiny of Restrictions: It would subject the restrictions imposed by the new law to strict scrutiny, demanding that the state demonstrate a compelling public interest and that the restrictions are narrowly tailored and proportionate to achieve the stated national security objective. This aligns with the "just, fair, and reasonable" procedure established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India for infringing on fundamental rights.
3. Drawing upon Precedent: The court would rely on precedents from cases where it has upheld freedom of speech, ensuring that the essence of the right is not diluted by executive or legislative overreach.
4. Upholding Basic Structure: If the new law is deemed to undermine the democratic character of the Constitution (a part of the basic structure), the court could declare it unconstitutional based on the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. Essentially, an activist court would not merely check if the procedure for passing the law was followed, but would critically examine its substance and impact on fundamental rights, balancing national security with democratic freedoms.

Scenario 2: A severe air pollution crisis grips a major Indian city due to industrial emissions and vehicular exhaust. Despite widespread public outcry, the municipal corporation and state government fail to implement effective measures. A concerned citizens' group approaches the High Court. Question: Discuss how the High Court, demonstrating judicial activism, could intervene, and what constitutional provisions would primarily guide its actions. Answer: In this scenario, the High Court, demonstrating judicial activism, could intervene through various mechanisms, primarily guided by:

1. Article 21 (Right to Life): The High Court would interpret the right to a clean environment as an integral part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.
2. Article 226 (Power to issue writs): It would use its power under Article 226 to issue writs (e.g., Mandamus) and directions to the municipal corporation and state government, compelling them to take immediate and effective measures.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The petition from the citizens' group would be treated as a PIL, allowing the court to address a public grievance that affects a large number of people. The High Court could issue a series of directives, drawing inspiration from cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which established environmental principles such as the 'Polluter Pays Principle' and 'Precautionary Principle'. These directives could include mandates for industries to adopt cleaner technologies, regulate vehicular emissions, implement waste management protocols, or form special task forces for pollution control. The court's intervention would be aimed at rectifying the governance failure and ensuring the citizens' fundamental right to a healthy environment.

9.3. Match-the-following / Chronology exercises

Match the following landmark judgments with their associated concepts/outcomes:

Correct Matching:

1. C
2. D
3. A
4. B

Arrange the following landmark judgments chronologically from earliest to latest: A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala C. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan D. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Correct Chronological Order:

1. D. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
2. B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
3. A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
4. C. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

9.4. Diagram-based/Case-based reasoning

Diagram: Evolution of Article 21's Scope

Question: Based on the diagram above, what is the primary significance of the Supreme Court's judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India for the evolution of Article 21 and judicial activism in India? Answer: The primary significance of the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India judgment (1978) is its transformative interpretation of the phrase "procedure established by law" in Article 21. Prior to this, the interpretation was narrower, focusing on the literal existence of a procedure. Post-Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court mandated that any procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must not only be established by law but must also be "just, fair, and reasonable." This effectively introduced an element of 'due process of law' into the Indian Constitution, similar to the American model. This expansive interpretation opened the doors for the judiciary to scrutinize the substantive fairness of laws and executive actions, rather than just their procedural aspects, thereby significantly broadening the scope of Article 21 and becoming a cornerstone for subsequent judicial activism in recognizing and enforcing numerous unarticulated rights.The comprehensive notes have been successfully generated, covering all specified content guidelines: foundational concepts, historical background, constitutional articles, amendments, landmark judgments, current relevance, comparative analysis, and criticisms. The notes are well over 10,000 characters and include a table, a flowchart, a chronological exercise, MCQs, and scenario-based questions with detailed explanations, along with a diagrammatic representation.

Therefore, the task is complete.## Judicial Activism in India: Balancing Justice and Governance

1. Introduction

Judicial activism represents a dynamic and often debated facet of the Indian legal system, where the judiciary proactively interprets the Constitution and laws to safeguard citizens' rights, promote justice, and address societal issues. Moving beyond its traditional role of merely adjudicating disputes, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, has frequently intervened to fill legislative or executive voids, ensuring constitutional principles are upheld and governance failures are rectified.

This transformative approach, while celebrated for fostering social change and protecting fundamental rights, simultaneously sparks crucial debates concerning democratic accountability, the delicate balance of power, and the potential for judicial overreach. This comprehensive note aims to delve into the concept, evolution, constitutional underpinnings, landmark judgments, contemporary relevance, and critical analysis of judicial activism in India, providing a structured resource for UPSC aspirants, State PCS candidates, law and political science students, and academic researchers.

2. Foundational Concepts

2.1. Defining Judicial Activism

Judicial activism refers to a judicial philosophy where courts take an assertive role in interpreting and enforcing laws, often stepping into areas traditionally reserved for the legislature or executive. It involves decisions that go beyond legal precedents and encompass a broader interpretation of constitutional provisions to address social, economic, and political issues. The term was first coined by American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947.

Key characteristics of Judicial Activism:

• Proactive Interpretation: Courts actively interpret the Constitution and laws to achieve justice, rather than strictly adhering to literal interpretations.
• Safeguarding Rights: A primary goal is to protect and expand the fundamental rights of citizens, especially marginalized communities.
• Addressing Governance Failures: The judiciary steps in when the executive or legislature fails to perform its duties, creating a void that the courts aim to fill.
• Influencing Policy: Judges may make decisions that have a broader impact on society, shaping public policy in areas like environmental protection, human rights, and social justice.

2.2. Judicial Review vs. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach

It is crucial to distinguish between these interconnected yet distinct concepts:

• Judicial Review: This is the constitutional power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. If a law or order is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the courts can declare it unconstitutional and void (ultra vires). Judicial review is explicitly provided under Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Indian Constitution. It forms the constitutional basis for judicial activism.

• Judicial Activism: As defined above, it is the proactive and assertive exercise of the power of judicial review to address societal issues, protect rights, and compel other branches of government to fulfill their constitutional duties. It goes beyond merely striking down unconstitutional laws to actively shaping policy and ensuring accountability.

• Judicial Overreach: This term describes instances where the judiciary exceeds its boundaries, interfering with functions traditionally carried out by the executive or legislature. It is considered an undesirable outcome of judicial activism where courts may begin issuing directions in policy-making or administrative matters without sufficient legal basis or democratic accountability, thereby disrupting the separation of powers.

Table 1: Differentiating Judicial Review, Activism, and Overreach

3. Historical and Constitutional Background

3.1. Origins and Evolution in India

The seeds of judicial activism in India were sown post-independence, though it gained significant momentum after the Emergency period (1975-1977).

• Early Years (1950-1970): Classical Judiciary: In the initial decades, the Indian judiciary adopted a more traditional, technocratic approach, primarily focusing on interpreting laws. It generally exercised judicial restraint, respecting parliamentary supremacy. However, early challenges to constitutional amendments (e.g., 1st and 17th Amendments concerning property rights) set the stage for future assertiveness.
• Post-Emergency Period (1975-1977 onwards): The Rise of Activism: The Emergency period, during which the judiciary's independence was severely tested (e.g., ADM Jabalpur case), served as a turning point. The judiciary sought to re-establish its credibility and independence, leading to a more assertive stance.
  • Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A major milestone was the liberalization of locus standi (the right to bring an action in court). The introduction of PIL (also known as Social Action Litigation or SAL) in the late 1970s and early 1980s by judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati revolutionized access to justice. It allowed individuals or groups, even if not directly affected, to approach courts in the public interest, transforming the judiciary into a vehicle for social change.
  • Expansion of Article 21: The expansive interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) became a cornerstone of judicial activism, including rights to health, environment, education, livelihood, and privacy.
• 1990s and 2000s: Expansion into Governance: This phase saw the judiciary expanding its intervention into governance matters, issuing directions on environmental protection, anti-corruption, electoral reforms, and administrative accountability.

3.2. Constitutional Basis

While the term "judicial activism" is not explicitly mentioned, it derives legitimacy from several constitutional provisions:

• Article 13 (Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights): This article explicitly provides for the power of judicial review, declaring laws inconsistent with fundamental rights as void.
• Article 32 (Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part): Empowers individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It is considered a cornerstone of judicial activism and the "very soul of the Constitution" by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
• Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs): Grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights, making its scope broader than Article 32.
• Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): Its dynamic and expansive interpretation by the Supreme Court to include a wide array of implied rights (e.g., right to clean environment, dignified life, education, privacy) has been central to judicial activism.
• Article 142 (Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc.): This extraordinary power allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for "doing complete justice" in any pending matter. It enables the court to fill legislative gaps and address exceptional circumstances, often seen as a significant enabler of judicial activism.
• Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV): Although non-justiciable, courts have often used DPSP to interpret fundamental rights and issue directives, thereby enforcing them indirectly.

3.3. Amendments and their Implications

Various constitutional amendments have shaped the relationship between the judiciary and other branches, influencing the scope of judicial activism:

• 1st Amendment (1951) & 17th Amendment (1964): Introduced to bypass inconvenient Supreme Court rulings, particularly regarding property rights, by excluding certain laws from judicial review through the Ninth Schedule.
• 24th Amendment (1971): Affirmed Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, in response to judicial decisions like Golaknath case.
• 25th Amendment (1971): Introduced Article 31C, protecting laws implementing Directive Principles from challenge on grounds of violating Articles 14, 19, or 31. This was an attempt to assert parliamentary supremacy over fundamental rights.
• 42nd Amendment (1976): Enacted during the Emergency, it significantly curtailed judicial review powers, made the DPSP superior to Fundamental Rights, and explicitly stated that constitutional amendments could not be questioned in any court.
• 44th Amendment (1978): Passed by the Janata government, it largely reversed the anti-democratic provisions of the 42nd Amendment, restoring some of the judiciary's powers and the balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.

4. Institutional Framework & Functions of Judicial Activism

Judicial activism operates within the framework of the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts.

4.1. Mechanisms of Judicial Activism

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The most significant instrument, allowing any public-spirited individual or organization to seek legal remedy on behalf of an aggrieved group or for a public cause. PILs have addressed a vast array of issues from environmental degradation, bonded labor, custodial deaths, to human rights violations.
• Suo Motu Actions: Courts can initiate proceedings on their own motion (suo motu) based on newspaper reports, letters, or public complaints concerning grave public concern.
• Expansive Interpretation of Rights: Broadening the scope of fundamental rights (especially Article 21) to encompass new dimensions like the right to clean environment, health, education, livelihood, and privacy.
• Issuing Guidelines/Directions: In the absence of specific legislation, courts have issued detailed guidelines and directions to the executive to fill legislative vacuums. A prime example is the Vishaka Guidelines.
• Judicial Innovations: Developing new doctrines and principles (e.g., Basic Structure Doctrine, Absolute Liability, Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle) to adapt the Constitution to changing societal needs.

4.2. Reasons for the Rise of Judicial Activism

Several factors have contributed to the judiciary's active role:

• Failure of Executive and Legislature: In many instances, the perceived inefficiency, inaction, corruption, and unaccountability of the executive and legislative branches have compelled the judiciary to intervene.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judiciary acts as a guardian of fundamental rights, especially for the marginalized, who often lack access to justice.
• Legislative Vacuum: When there is an absence of clear laws on critical issues, courts step in to provide guidelines or temporary frameworks.
• Public Confidence: The judiciary generally enjoys higher public trust compared to other branches of government, leading citizens to seek redressal from courts.
• Constitutional Provisions: Articles like 32, 226, and 142 provide expansive powers that facilitate an activist approach.
• Judicial Enthusiasm: The vision and commitment of individual judges have significantly shaped the trajectory of judicial activism.

5. Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases

Indian judicial history is replete with landmark judgments that exemplify judicial activism.

• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. This decision, though later overturned, marked an early assertion of judicial power.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This monumental case introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is not absolute and cannot alter the "basic structure" or essential features of the Constitution (e.g., secularism, democracy, federalism, judicial review). This judgment definitively established judicial supremacy in safeguarding the constitutional framework.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court gave a highly expansive interpretation to Article 21, holding that the "procedure established by law" must be "just, fair, and reasonable" (akin to 'due process of law' in the USA). This case laid the foundation for subsequent activist interpretations of Article 21 to include various unarticulated rights.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (First Judges' Case): This case is pivotal for liberalizing locus standi, allowing public-spirited individuals or groups to file PILs, thereby opening the floodgates for judicial activism through PIL.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Considered the first major PIL, it highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails for extended periods. The court ordered their release, recognizing the right to speedy trial as a fundamental right.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978, 1980): Expanded prisoners' rights, laying down guidelines to prevent custodial torture and ensure humane treatment, recognizing that prisoners retain fundamental rights.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (various cases, e.g., 1986, 1987, 1991, 1997): A series of environmental PILs led to significant directions on air and water pollution, vehicular emissions, and hazardous industries. The court introduced principles like "Polluter Pays" and "Precautionary Principle."
• Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Recognized the "right to livelihood" as an integral part of the "right to life" under Article 21, protecting slum dwellers from arbitrary eviction.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): In the absence of a specific law, the Supreme Court formulated comprehensive guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace, which later formed the basis for the POSH Act, 2013.
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998): The court issued directions for strengthening the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to ensure accountability in corruption cases, impacting administrative governance.
• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (NALSA case, 2014): Recognized transgender persons as the "third gender" with all fundamental rights, upholding the right to self-identify one's gender.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, significantly broadening its application.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 of the IPC, emphasizing rights to privacy, dignity, and equality.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): Decriminalized adultery (Section 497 IPC), reinforcing gender equality.

6. Contemporary Relevance & Criticisms

6.1. Arguments in Favour of Judicial Activism

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: In a country with pervasive socio-economic disparities, the judiciary often serves as the most accessible forum for justice, especially for the vulnerable and marginalized.
• Accountability and Good Governance: It acts as a vital check on arbitrary or corrupt actions by the executive and legislature, ensuring they operate within constitutional bounds.
• Social Transformation: Activist courts have played a crucial role in promoting progressive reforms in gender justice, environmental protection, and minority rights, shaping public discourse.
• Filling Legislative Vacuum: When the legislature is slow or fails to enact necessary laws, judicial intervention can provide interim guidelines or push for legislative action.
• Ensuring Constitutional Supremacy: By reviewing laws and actions, it ensures the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.

6.2. Criticisms and Concerns (Judicial Overreach)

Despite its positive contributions, judicial activism faces significant criticisms, often blurring into the concept of judicial overreach:

• Violation of Separation of Powers: Critics argue that judicial activism, especially when it becomes overreach, infringes upon the doctrine of separation of powers, where distinct functions are allocated to the legislature (law-making), executive (implementation), and judiciary (interpretation). This can lead to "judge-made laws" and the judiciary performing roles traditionally reserved for other branches.
• Lack of Democratic Accountability: Judges are appointed, not elected, raising concerns about their democratic legitimacy when they formulate policy or issue broad directions. Elected representatives are directly accountable to the people.
• Undermining Legislative Authority: When courts issue specific directions or legislate "from the bench," it can undermine the authority and confidence of the legislature.
• Overburdening the Judiciary: Taking on policy-making or administrative functions can lead to an increased backlog of cases, diverting resources from core judicial functions and delaying justice delivery.
• Judicial Tyranny/Despotism: Concerns are raised about the judiciary imposing its own preferences or personal views in the guise of activism, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions.
• Lack of Expertise: Judges may lack the technical expertise required for complex policy-making and administrative matters (e.g., economic policy, environmental regulations).
• Financial Implications: Judicial directives sometimes have significant financial implications for the state, which should ideally be determined by the executive, which controls public exchequer.
• Recent Examples of Debate:
  • Supreme Court's directive on the timeline for Presidential assent to state Bills reserved by Governors.
  • Directions on liquor sales near national highways.
  • Mandating playing of National Anthem in cinema halls (later modified).

Flowchart: The Fine Line - Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach

Explanation: This flowchart illustrates the progression from a governance issue to judicial intervention. If the intervention is aimed at interpreting laws, upholding rights, and filling legislative gaps within legitimate judicial functions, it constitutes Judicial Activism, leading to positive outcomes. However, if it transgresses into policy-making or administrative domains, it becomes Judicial Overreach, leading to constitutional imbalance and criticism.

7. Comparative Analysis with Global Models

Judicial activism is not unique to India, but its manifestation and intensity vary across democracies.

• India: Characterized by a highly proactive approach, particularly through PIL, the Indian judiciary has often played a transformative role in social issues, environmental protection, and human rights. This assertiveness is partly attributed to the constitutional framework that allows for expansive judicial review and the "doing complete justice" mandate of Article 142. The "procedure established by law" under Article 21 was interpreted as "due process of law" by the Supreme Court in the Maneka Gandhi case, broadening its scope.

• United States: The concept of judicial activism originated here. The U.S. Supreme Court, through landmark decisions (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education on racial segregation, Roe v. Wade on abortion rights), has significantly influenced civil rights and social issues. The "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment has been a powerful tool for judicial intervention, giving the Supreme Court broad latitude in protecting individual rights. However, debates about judicial activism vs. restraint are prominent, often linked to the political leanings of judges and constitutional interpretation philosophies (originalism vs. living constitution).

• United Kingdom: Traditionally known for parliamentary supremacy, judicial activism in the UK has historically been less pronounced than in India or the USA. The establishment of the UK Supreme Court in 2009 has, however, seen a more assertive role, especially concerning human rights (under the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights). Judicial review ensures government decisions comply with the law, but courts are generally more deferential to Parliament's legislative authority.

Table 2: Comparative Glimpse of Judicial Activism

8. Conclusion & Summary

Judicial activism in India has undoubtedly played a crucial role in safeguarding constitutional values, protecting fundamental rights, and addressing governance deficits, especially in areas where the executive and legislature have faltered. It has fostered a more responsive and pro-people judiciary, giving a voice to the voiceless through instruments like Public Interest Litigation.

However, the expansive exercise of judicial power also poses challenges to the principle of separation of powers, raising concerns about judicial overreach and democratic accountability. The judiciary, while acting as a corrective mechanism, must also exercise self-restraint (judicial restraint) to maintain the delicate institutional balance essential for a healthy democracy.

The path forward lies in a harmonious functioning of all three organs of the state, where Parliament legislates effectively, the Executive governs transparently and accountably, and the Judiciary intervenes sparingly yet decisively when constitutional principles or fundamental rights are genuinely threatened, rather than encroaching upon policy-making domains.

Key Takeaways:

• Judicial activism is the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting law and enforcing justice, particularly through PIL.
• It is distinct from judicial review (power to check constitutionality) and judicial overreach (transgression into legislative/executive domains).
• Key constitutional articles supporting it are 13, 21, 32, 226, and 142.
• Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, M.C. Mehta, and Vishaka exemplify its impact.
• It protects rights and promotes good governance but faces criticism regarding separation of powers and democratic accountability.
• Striking a balance between activism and restraint is crucial for democratic governance.

9. Practice Questions & Answers

9.1. Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. Which of the following is NOT a constitutional basis for judicial activism in India? a) Article 32 b) Article 226 c) Article 142 d) Article 368

Correct Answer: d) Article 368 Explanation: Article 368 deals with the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and the procedure thereof. While judicial interpretations (like the Basic Structure Doctrine) have limited this power, Article 368 itself is not considered a constitutional basis for judicial activism, which is primarily about the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting and enforcing laws and rights. Articles 32, 226, and 142 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to enforce rights and do complete justice, thus facilitating judicial activism.

2. The concept of 'Public Interest Litigation' (PIL) in India primarily originated due to the liberalization of which legal principle? a) Doctrine of Stare Decisis b) Principle of Locus Standi c) Doctrine of Res Judicata d) Principle of Natural Justice

Correct Answer: b) Principle of Locus Standi Explanation: PIL gained momentum due to the relaxation of the traditional rule of locus standi, which earlier required that only a person directly aggrieved could approach the court. With PIL, any public-spirited individual or organization can approach the court on behalf of others or for a public cause.

3. Which landmark Supreme Court judgment introduced the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' of the Indian Constitution? a) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India b) S.P. Gupta v. Union of India c) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala d) Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India

Correct Answer: c) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala Explanation: The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional law, where the Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

4. Judicial overreach is often criticized for violating which fundamental principle of democratic governance? a) Rule of Law b) Judicial Review c) Separation of Powers d) Constitutionalism

Correct Answer: c) Separation of Powers Explanation: Judicial overreach occurs when the judiciary intervenes in matters traditionally falling under the executive or legislative domains, thereby disturbing the delicate balance of powers among the three branches of government.

5. The Vishaka Guidelines, formulated by the Supreme Court in 1997, primarily addressed which issue? a) Right to clean environment b) Prevention of custodial torture c) Prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace d) Right to speedy trial

Correct Answer: c) Prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace Explanation: In the absence of specific legislation, the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) laid down comprehensive guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace. These guidelines later formed the basis for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

9.2. Scenario-Based Questions

Scenario 1: The Parliament enacts a law that significantly restricts freedom of speech and expression, citing national security concerns. A group of journalists files a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of this law. Question: How might the Supreme Court, exhibiting judicial activism, approach this scenario, considering its past pronouncements? Answer: The Supreme Court, exhibiting judicial activism, would likely approach this scenario by:

1. Expansive Interpretation of Article 19(1)(a): The court would interpret the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) broadly, emphasizing its integral role in a democratic society.
2. Strict Scrutiny of Restrictions: It would subject the restrictions imposed by the new law to strict scrutiny, demanding that the state demonstrate a compelling public interest and that the restrictions are narrowly tailored and proportionate to achieve the stated national security objective. This aligns with the "just, fair, and reasonable" procedure established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India for infringing on fundamental rights.
3. Drawing upon Precedent: The court would rely on precedents from cases where it has upheld freedom of speech, ensuring that the essence of the right is not diluted by executive or legislative overreach.
4. Upholding Basic Structure: If the new law is deemed to undermine the democratic character of the Constitution (a part of the basic structure), the court could declare it unconstitutional based on the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. Essentially, an activist court would not merely check if the procedure for passing the law was followed, but would critically examine its substance and impact on fundamental rights, balancing national security with democratic freedoms.

Scenario 2: A severe air pollution crisis grips a major Indian city due to industrial emissions and vehicular exhaust. Despite widespread public outcry, the municipal corporation and state government fail to implement effective measures. A concerned citizens' group approaches the High Court. Question: Discuss how the High Court, demonstrating judicial activism, could intervene, and what constitutional provisions would primarily guide its actions. Answer: In this scenario, the High Court, demonstrating judicial activism, could intervene through various mechanisms, primarily guided by:

1. Article 21 (Right to Life): The High Court would interpret the right to a clean environment as an integral part of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.
2. Article 226 (Power to issue writs): It would use its power under Article 226 to issue writs (e.g., Mandamus) and directions to the municipal corporation and state government, compelling them to take immediate and effective measures.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The petition from the citizens' group would be treated as a PIL, allowing the court to address a public grievance that affects a large number of people. The High Court could issue a series of directives, drawing inspiration from cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, which established environmental principles such as the 'Polluter Pays Principle' and 'Precautionary Principle'. These directives could include mandates for industries to adopt cleaner technologies, regulate vehicular emissions, implement waste management protocols, or form special task forces for pollution control. The court's intervention would be aimed at rectifying the governance failure and ensuring the citizens' fundamental right to a healthy environment.

9.3. Match-the-following / Chronology exercises

Match the following landmark judgments with their associated concepts/outcomes:

Correct Matching:

1. C
2. D
3. A
4. B

Arrange the following landmark judgments chronologically from earliest to latest: A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala C. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan D. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

Correct Chronological Order:

1. D. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
2. B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
3. A. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
4. C. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

9.4. Diagram-based/Case-based reasoning

Diagram: Evolution of Article 21's Scope

Question: Based on the diagram above, what is the primary significance of the Supreme Court's judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India for the evolution of Article 21 and judicial activism in India? Answer: The primary significance of the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India judgment (1978) is its transformative interpretation of the phrase "procedure established by law" in Article 21. Prior to this, the interpretation was narrower, focusing on the literal existence of a procedure. Post-Maneka Gandhi, the Supreme Court mandated that any procedure depriving a person of life or personal liberty must not only be established by law but must also be "just, fair, and reasonable." This effectively introduced an element of 'due process of law' into the Indian Constitution, similar to the American model. This expansive interpretation opened the doors for the judiciary to scrutinize the substantive fairness of laws and executive actions, rather than just their procedural aspects, thereby significantly broadening the scope of Article 21 and becoming a cornerstone for subsequent judicial activism in recognizing and enforcing numerous unarticulated rights.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE