Judicial Activism

Imagine you’re an ordinary citizen whose ration card is suddenly rejected without explanation, or a student whose college fee hike feels like daylight robbery. When the executive moves too slowly—or worse, turns a blind eye—where do you turn? Indian courts have quietly become the people’s last-mile protectors, stepping in when the system fails. This is judicial activism: the judiciary’s bold, compassionate hand ensuring that rights aren’t just written in the Constitution, but lived in the alleys and villages of India.

What exactly is judicial activism—and why does it spark debate?

Judicial activism is a term used to describe the actions of judges who take an active role in shaping the law and policy, often by striking down laws or government actions that they deem unconstitutional. This approach is in contrast to judicial restraint, which emphasizes the importance of deferring to the decisions of elected officials and limiting the role of the judiciary to interpreting the law as written. In India, for example, the Supreme Court has been accused of judicial activism in cases such as the Right to Privacy judgment, where the court recognized privacy as a fundamental right and struck down a law that allowed for the collection of biometric data without consent. Critics argue that such decisions amount to judicial overreach, where the court is essentially making policy decisions that should be left to the legislature. On the other hand, supporters see judicial activism as a necessary check on the power of the government and a means of ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected. They argue that the judiciary has a responsibility to act as a watchdog and prevent the government from abusing its power, and that this is an example of judicial oversight rather than overreach.

How did India’s courts become so activist—from colonial times to today?

Imagine a system where justice is locked behind layers of bureaucracy and only the rich and powerful can afford to knock on the courthouse doors. That was India’s legal reality for much of its colonial past. The Federal Court set up in 1937, though a step forward, largely mirrored this caution—hesitant to challenge the colonial government even when rights were trampled. It was the 1975–77 Emergency, when fundamental freedoms were suspended and elections were postponed, that lit the spark for judicial activism. Courts realized they could no longer stay silent spectators. This era gave birth to Public Interest Litigation (PIL), allowing even a postcard or a newspaper article to be treated as a petition if it raised issues affecting the public at large. A real turning point came in 1979 with the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of thousands of undertrial prisoners languishing in jails for years without trial—many had served longer than their potential sentence. The Court ordered their release and laid down guidelines to prevent such injustice, showing that the judiciary could now act as the guardian of the people, not just an interpreter of laws.

From the 1990s onward, this role expanded dramatically. Courts became the “people’s voice,” stepping in on issues from environmental degradation to corruption. In 2011, for example, the Supreme Court intervened to clean up the Bellandur Lake in Bengaluru after toxic foam and sewage turned it into a public health hazard, directing authorities to restore the lake within a strict timeline. This shift—from cautious colonial courts to assertive constitutional courts—reflects a deeper evolution: the judiciary began to see itself not just as a referee between the government and citizens, but as a proactive protector of constitutional values and social justice. Today, when a citizen’s rights are violated but the government looks away, the courts often remain the last institution that still listens.

What tools do Indian courts use to act? Part 1: Judicial Review

Indian courts have a powerful tool to ensure that laws and government actions align with the Constitution: judicial review. This is the constitutional scalpel that trims laws violating fundamental rights or straying from the Constitution’s basic structure. But what does this mean, and how does it work? Let's consider a real-world example. Imagine a law is passed that restricts freedom of speech, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. In such a case, the courts can use judicial review to examine the law and determine if it violates the Constitution. If the court finds that the law does indeed violate the Constitution, it can strike down the law, rendering it null and void. This power is not limited to laws; it also extends to government actions and policies.

A notable example of judicial review in action is the Minerva Mills vs. Union of India case (1980). In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India used judicial review to strike down certain amendments to the Constitution that it deemed violated the basic structure of the Constitution. The court's decision reinforced the principle that the Constitution's basic structure is inviolable, even by Parliament. This case illustrates how judicial review acts as a check on both legislative and executive powers, ensuring that they operate within the boundaries set by the Constitution.

The process of judicial review involves the courts assessing whether a law or government action is in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution. If a law or action is found to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the court can declare it unconstitutional and therefore void. This power is crucial because it prevents the misuse of legislative and executive powers and safeguards the rights of citizens. Through judicial review, the Indian judiciary plays a vital role in upholding the rule of law and protecting the principles of democracy and individual rights enshrined in the Constitution.

What tools do Indian courts use to act? Part 2: Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Imagine the courthouse door was once a narrow keyhole: only those with money, connections, and perfect paperwork could squeeze through. Then came Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and the door swung wide open. PIL lets any Indian—even a prisoner writing on a postcard or a pavement dweller filing in person—knock on the Supreme Court or High Court for justice on behalf of the voiceless. It transformed litigation from a private fight into a public good, turning judges into guardians of the Constitution for those who could never afford a lawyer.

Take the Shramik Mukti Sangathan case (1984). A group of bonded labourers in stone quarries near Delhi filed a PIL in the Supreme Court after local authorities ignored their pleas for freedom and unpaid wages. The Court converted a postcard into a full case, summoned officials, and ordered the labourers’ release and compensation. Within months, over 300,000 bonded workers were freed nationwide, proving that a single PIL could unlock systemic change. Today, PILs have been used to clean the Ganga, improve prison conditions, and ensure food rations reach the poor—turning courtrooms into engines of social justice rather than temples of technicality.

What tools do Indian courts use to act? Part 3: Constitutional Interpretation & Innovative Remedies

Indian courts have developed several tools to breathe life into the Constitution and ensure that the government and other entities are held accountable. One of the key tools used by the courts is Constitutional Interpretation, which involves reading the Constitution in a way that takes into account the changing needs and values of society. For example, the Supreme Court has interpreted the right to "life" under Article 21 to include not just the right to exist, but also the right to live with dignity. This interpretation has been used to strike down laws and policies that violate human dignity, such as the practice of manual scavenging.

Another tool used by the courts is the invention of innovative remedies, such as the continuing mandamus. This remedy allows the court to issue an order that requires the government or other entity to take ongoing action to address a particular issue. For example, in the case of the Ganga pollution case, the Supreme Court issued a continuing mandamus ordering the government to take steps to clean up the Ganga river and prevent further pollution. The court has also fashioned compensation as a right, ordering the government to pay compensation to victims of human rights violations or other injustices.

These tools have been used in a variety of cases to hold the government and other entities accountable and to protect the rights of citizens. For instance, in the case of Nike Corporation vs. Kapil Mehra, the Delhi High Court used constitutional interpretation to rule that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. The court ordered the company to pay compensation to the victims of pollution and to take steps to prevent further pollution.

Can judicial activism cross the line into judicial overreach?

As we delve into the concept of judicial activism, it's essential to consider the fine line between active judicial intervention and overreach. In the Indian context, the judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the country's legal landscape, often taking on an activist role to address social and political issues. However, this raises important questions about the limits of judicial power and the potential risks of unelected judges making policy decisions. The basic structure doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, serves as a safeguard against judicial overreach, ensuring that the judiciary does not encroach on the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

A notable example of judicial activism in India is the collegium system, which has been criticized for its lack of transparency and potential for bias. The collegium, comprising senior judges, is responsible for appointing new judges to the higher judiciary. While this system has been instrumental in maintaining the independence of the judiciary, it has also been accused of being opaque and prone to favoritism. The self-restraint exercised by judges is critical in preventing judicial overreach, as they must balance their desire to address social injustices with the need to respect the boundaries of their authority.

To illustrate the risks and safeguards of judicial activism, consider the example of the Right to Privacy judgment (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India), where the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right. This decision had far-reaching implications, impacting various aspects of Indian life, from data protection to individual freedoms. While this judgment demonstrates the judiciary's ability to shape the legal landscape, it also highlights the need for collegium balance and self-restraint to prevent overreach. By weighing the risks and safeguards, we can better understand the complexities of judicial activism and its role in shaping the Indian legal system.

Landmark cases that shaped activism: From Kesavananda to Puttaswamy

Judicial activism in India is not an abstract theory—it is the story of courts stepping in when other branches hesitated, transforming constitutional promises into lived reality. The journey begins with Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court carved out the “basic structure” doctrine. At the height of the Emergency, when fundamental rights were suspended, this ruling told the government: no amendment can destroy the Constitution’s core identity. The bench held that Parliament could not use its amending power to alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution—such as federalism, secularism, or judicial independence. This was the first time the Court declared itself the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, not the government of the day. Imagine a builder trying to demolish the foundation of a house mid-construction—Kesavananda did the constitutional equivalent, stopping arbitrary power in its tracks.

The ripple effect continued in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), where the Court linked the right to life (Article 21) to the right to livelihood. It ruled that evicting pavement dwellers without providing alternative shelter violated their fundamental right to live with dignity. This wasn’t just a legal victory—it forced cities to rethink urban planning and recognize that the poor are not obstacles but citizens whose rights must be protected. Then came Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), which read the right to education into Article 21, laying the groundwork for the Right to Education Act (2009).

The activism reached a defining moment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), where the Supreme Court unanimously declared “privacy is a fundamental right” under Article 21. In an era of Aadhaar, data breaches, and digital surveillance, the Court affirmed that personal autonomy and dignity are non-negotiable. This ruling didn’t just protect individual privacy—it became the legal backbone for challenges to Aadhaar misuse, LGBTQ+ rights, and even marital rape laws. It showed how one judgment could shield freedoms in the digital age.

And finally, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2001), the Court transformed the right to food into a justiciable entitlement. It ordered states to implement the Public Distribution System effectively, ensuring no one starves due to bureaucratic failure. This wasn’t charity—it was constitutional enforcement. Today, when a ration card holder in Rajasthan receives subsidized food despite local shortages, it is Puttaswamy and PUCL working in tandem: privacy and survival, both protected by judicial courage.

Judicial activism in action: Everyday stories from the ground

Judicial activism is not just a legal concept, but a powerful tool for everyday people to claim their rights and challenge injustices. Judicial activism in action can be seen in the stories of ordinary Indians who have used the courts to fight for their rights and bring about change. For example, a Dalit woman in rural India may use the courts to challenge the denial of access to education for her children, citing the Right to Education Act. Similarly, a farmer may use the courts to stop the exploitation of groundwater by a nearby factory, arguing that it violates their right to life and livelihood. A disabled person may use the courts to demand accessible public transport, citing the Persons with Disabilities Act. These stories illustrate how judicial activism can be a powerful tool for social change, allowing individuals to challenge unjust laws and policies and bring about a more just and equitable society.

Critiques and counter-critiques: Is activism pro-people or anti-democracy?

Judicial activism is often praised as a safety net for citizens when the other branches of government fail to act. But critics call it a power grab that upsets the balance of democracy. To judge for yourself, listen to the voices around you.

Imagine a factory in Ghaziabad dumping untreated waste into the Hindon River, poisoning the water for thousands of families. For years, politicians promised cleanup but did nothing. Bureaucrats cited “lack of funds” and moved on. Then, in 2015, the National Green Tribunal (NGT)—a judicial body—stepped in and ordered the factory shut until it installed proper filters. The factory owners cried “judicial overreach,” calling the order an assault on business. Politicians from the ruling party accused the NGT of “encroaching on executive turf.” Scholars like Upendra Baxi countered that when the executive abdicates its duty, the judiciary must act to protect people’s right to clean water under Article 21 of the Constitution.

On the other side, bureaucrat A.K. Sharma (former Union Environment Secretary) warned that “constant judicial intervention turns officials into spectators, discouraging innovation and delaying projects that could create jobs.” Political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta argued that while activism can correct failures, it risks turning courts into “unelected super-legislatures,” undermining the democratic mandate of elected representatives.

So, is activism pro-people or anti-democracy? The Ghaziabad case shows how judges can become the last shield for citizens when institutions fail. Yet Sharma’s and Mehta’s warnings remind us that every safety net must not strangle the very system it protects.

How can we, as citizens, use judicial activism responsibly?

As citizens, it is essential to understand how to utilize judicial activism responsibly, ensuring that the courts are not overburdened with cases that should be addressed by the government or other institutions. One way to do this is by filing Public Interest Litigations (PILs) ethically. For instance, in India, the PIL filed by the environmental activist, M.C. Mehta, in the 1980s, led to significant reforms in the management of the Ganges River, highlighting the impact of responsible judicial activism. When filing a PIL, it is crucial to ensure that the issue at hand is of public concern, affects a large number of people, and is not a matter of personal interest.

Crowd-funding litigation is another way to support judicial activism responsibly. This approach allows multiple individuals to contribute to the legal costs of a case, making it more accessible and reducing the financial burden on a single person. However, it is vital to ensure that crowd-funding is done transparently, and the funds are used solely for the purpose of supporting the litigation. Moreover, citizens must stay vigilant and monitor the progress of cases, holding the government and institutions accountable for their actions. This can be achieved through active participation in public discourse, supporting organizations that work towards social and environmental causes, and demanding transparency and accountability from those in power.

A concrete example of responsible judicial activism in India is the case of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which was enacted in 2005. The RTI Act allows citizens to access information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability. This legislation has been instrumental in exposing corruption and ensuring that the government is answerable to the people. By using the RTI Act responsibly, citizens can bring about significant changes in governance, making it more accountable and responsive to the needs of the people.

Key takeaways

• Judicial activism is the judiciary’s proactive shield for rights when the executive or legislature fall short.
• Tools like judicial review, PIL, and creative interpretation give courts the power to act—and occasionally overstep.
• Landmark rulings from Kesavananda to Puttaswamy expanded rights from education to privacy, proving activism’s transformative potential.
• Critics warn of judicial overreach; defenders argue activism fills gaps left by slow or absent governance.
• Every citizen can be part of activism—by filing PILs responsibly, demanding transparency, and holding courts accountable.
• Activism works best when it complements democracy, not replaces it—keeping the balance between rights, justice, and governance.

Test yourself