Judicial Activism

• Defining the "Line": The constant challenge is to define where judicial activism ends and judicial overreach begins. This line is often subjective and debated.
• Accountability of an Activist Judiciary: If the judiciary actively shapes policy, how is it to be held accountable, unlike the elected executive and legislature? This ties into debates on judicial accountability mechanisms.
• Policy Formulation: The question of whether courts are equipped to formulate complex policies given their limited information, expertise, and democratic mandate.
• Role of PILs: While beneficial, PILs have also been criticized for opening frivolous litigation, personal vendettas, and impacting court efficiency.

• Ensuring Good Governance: Plays a vital role in pushing the executive towards transparency, efficiency, and accountability in administration.
• Environmental Protection: Judicial activism has been crucial in environmental jurisprudence, leading to significant policy changes and conservation efforts.
• Electoral Reforms: SC's directives on candidate disclosures, NOTA, and electoral bonds have shaped the electoral landscape.
• Human Rights and Social Justice: Continued relevance in addressing issues of bonded labor, child rights, women's safety, and the rights of marginalized communities.
• Checks and Balances: Despite criticisms, judicial activism remains a critical element of the checks and balances system, preventing the concentration of power.

• Constitutional Morality: A concept often invoked by the judiciary, particularly in activist judgments, to interpret the Constitution in light of its underlying values and spirit.
• Separation of Powers: A fundamental doctrine that judicial activism is often seen to challenge, necessitating a careful balance.
• Judicial Accountability: The counter-argument to judicial activism, emphasizing mechanisms to hold the judiciary responsible for its actions.

"Judicial activism is not new to India. Analyse the various facets of judicial activism and its implications in the Indian context."

Direction: This is a direct question on judicial activism. A comprehensive answer must cover its meaning, justifications, manifestations (PIL, guidelines), merits, demerits (overreach), and the need for balance. Examples are crucial.

"The Indian Constitution embodies the principle of 'separation of powers' but also provides for 'checks and balances' to ensure accountability." Discuss the various mechanisms through which the Supreme Court acts as a check on the powers of the Executive and the Legislature.

Direction: Judicial activism is a significant mechanism through which the Supreme Court acts as a check. An answer should explain how activism (through judicial review, PIL, etc.) is exercised to ensure accountability and prevent overreach by other branches, while also addressing concerns of overreach.

"Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has led to expansion of the scope of judiciary's role in India. Discuss the merits and demerits of PIL in the Indian context."

Direction: This question focuses on PIL, the primary vehicle for judicial activism. Discuss how PIL transformed the judiciary's role, providing merits (access to justice, social change) and demerits (frivolous cases, judicial overreach), directly addressing the core themes of judicial activism.

"Judicial activism in India has been a double-edged sword, serving as a beacon of justice in many instances while simultaneously inviting concerns of judicial overreach." Analyze this statement by discussing the merits and demerits of judicial activism, and suggest measures to ensure a healthy balance between judicial vigilance and democratic accountability.

Key Points/Structure:
Introduction: Define judicial activism as a proactive judicial role, a departure from traditional adjudication, often lauded but also criticized.
Judicial Activism as a "Beacon of Justice" (Merits): Filling legislative/executive vacuum, protecting Fundamental Rights, making justice accessible through PIL, holding executive accountable, promoting social justice.
Concerns of "Judicial Overreach" (Demerits): Disturbing separation of powers, lack of judicial expertise/resources, risk of populism, increased court burden, undermining democratic accountability.
Measures for Healthy Balance: Judicial Self-Restraint, clearer doctrine, strengthening other organs, institutional accountability, focus on core functions.
Conclusion: Summarize that judicial activism is vital for a dynamic Constitution but must operate within the delicate framework of checks and balances. The focus should be on ensuring that it serves as a constitutional corrective, not a replacement for democratic governance.

"Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has profoundly transformed the landscape of access to justice in India, enabling a broad scope of judicial activism. Discuss the evolution and implications of PIL, highlighting its successes in addressing systemic injustices and the challenges associated with its practice."

Key Points/Structure:
Introduction: Define PIL and its unique nature in India (relaxed locus standi, epistolary jurisdiction). Mention its link to judicial activism.
Evolution of PIL: Pre-1980s strict locus standi, Post-Emergency (1980s) genesis with Justices P.N. Bhagwati & V.R. Krishna Iyer; liberalization; acceptance of letters/newspaper reports. Key cases.
Implications and Successes (Merits): Democratization of Justice, broadening scope of Rights (Art 21 expansion), accountability of Executive, social change catalyst, environmental protection.
Challenges and Criticisms (Demerits): Judicial Overreach, lack of expertise & resources, frivolous PILs, increased workload, monitoring issues, selective activism.
Conclusion: Summarize that PIL is a revolutionary tool that has expanded access to justice and fostered social transformation. However, it requires careful self-regulation by the judiciary and a greater sense of responsibility from petitioners to maintain its sanctity and effectiveness.