Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach – Critical Analysis
Parliament vs Judiciary | Checks and Balances | UPSC Analysis
1. Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in protecting rights and ensuring justice. Courts intervene in matters of public interest, governance failures, and rights violations.
- Protects Fundamental Rights
- Strengthens democracy
- Promotes accountability of government
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a key tool of judicial activism.
2. Judicial Overreach
Judicial Overreach occurs when courts exceed their constitutional limits and interfere in the functions of the executive or legislature.
- Interference in policy decisions
- Violation of separation of powers
- May affect democratic functioning
While activism is necessary, overreach can create institutional imbalance.
3. Parliament’s Perspective
Parliament represents the will of the people and has the power to make and amend laws. It argues that excessive judicial intervention may undermine legislative authority.
Parliament seeks to maintain its supremacy in law-making while respecting constitutional limits.
4. Judiciary’s Perspective
The judiciary ensures that laws and actions of the government are within constitutional boundaries. It acts as a guardian of the Constitution.
Judicial review is essential to prevent misuse of power and protect democracy.
5. Checks and Balances
The Indian Constitution follows a system of checks and balances among the three organs: Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
- Parliament makes laws
- Executive implements laws
- Judiciary reviews laws
This system ensures that no organ becomes too powerful.
6. Conclusion
A balance between judicial activism and restraint is essential. While courts must protect rights and ensure justice, they must also respect the domain of other organs.
Healthy coordination between Parliament and Judiciary strengthens democracy and governance.
Shaktimatha Learning
No comments:
Post a Comment