Topic: Distinguish between judicial review and judicial activism in India. Is it possible? Behaviour of the Indian judiciary partake more of judicial activism? : Argument with Suitable Example.

The interpretational and observer role of the Judiciary over the Legislature is called Judicial Review (JR). The judiciary is the final authority for the interpretation of constitution in India. The Judiciary can prevent it by declaring the act or action ultra-virus, if the Legislature transgresses the powers given to it by the constitution. This power is called JR.

While Judicial Activism (JA) is the concept how actively and quickly the judiciary performs the act of JR. the readiness that the courts have achieved in exercising its power to uphold the values of the constitution have been generally come to the extent that JR has gradually acquired the form of Judicial Activism (JA) in India.

JA is the extent and the vigour and the readiness with which courts exercise their power of JR. So, there is a marked difference between both of them. Courts have actively performed an interventionist role and that we have witnessed the phenomenon of JA. The courts have over thrown or at least liberalized the concept of locust stand to allow any public spirited person or organisation to bring to the notice of the court any matter of injustice and violation of constitutional rights of any downtrodden and unprivileged classes of society.

The court has expanded the scope and amplitude of Article 21 to cover many basic rights under it, so that giving them the status of fundamental rights, they can be enforced against the state also, even by PIL. Another factor which contributed to the JA was the expansive judicial interpretation placed on the expression life in Article.

« Go Back to Model Answer Page