Revision summary
Judicial activism is gap-filling rights enforcement through PIL and Articles 32, 226 and 142. Cases such as Maneka Gandhi and Vishaka show courts acting where the Executive lagged. The impact is dual: more accountability and more friction over policy and appointments. NJAC (2015) and scheme-monitoring illustrate the strain on separation of powers. The relationship works when decrees are exceptional and the Executive then legislates.
Model answer
Introduction
Judicial activism is the use of constitutional power by courts to fill gaps, enforce rights, and correct executive inertia beyond a narrow reading of the text. Evaluation must weigh rights-protection against the strain it places on the Executive–Judiciary line.
Body
Concept
- Activism grew through Articles 32 and 226, expanded locus in public-interest litigation, and Article 142’s complete-justice power.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) widened Article 21; Vishaka (1997) laid workplace guidelines where the Executive had not legislated.
- The basic-structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) lets the Court strike even a constitutional amendment that hollows judicial review.
Impact on Executive–Judiciary relations
- Positive: courts have pushed the Executive on bonded labour, environment, and delayed appointments, converting rights into enforceable duties.
- Strain: frequent stay of policy, monitoring of schemes, and the NJAC verdict (2015) revived the perception that the Court writes governance, not only law.
- The Executive still holds purse and personnel; activism without legislative follow-up leaves guidelines that later statutes must absorb or replace.
Balanced evaluation
- Activism is a response to vacuum and rights-failure, not a parallel cabinet.
- The relationship stays healthy only when the Court uses Articles 32, 141 and 142 as last-resort tools and the Executive implements, rather than defies, the decree.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD V[Rights vacuum or inertia] --> C[Articles 32 226 142] C --> A[Activist decree or guideline] A --> E[Executive implementation] A --> T[Tension over policy space]
Conclusion
Judicial activism means rights-centred, gap-filling review. It has made the Executive more accountable and also more defensive. The constitutional balance holds when activism remains exceptional and the political branches then legislate.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
"The President of India cannot become a dictator." Explain.
Next question in the 2020 paper (Q2). View answer →
-
Is judicial activism the same as judicial review?
Review tests legality. Activism is a style of review that fills legislative or executive gaps and often issues continuing mandamus.
-
Did the Constitution name ‘judicial activism’?
No. The phrase is doctrinal. The powers used are those in Articles 32, 141, 142 and 226.
More from this paper
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2020 · UPGS2 · 8 marks
"The President of India cannot become a dictator." Explain.
Indian Constitution
Article 74 after the Forty-fourth Amendment binds the President to ministerial aid and advice. Shamsher Singh treats the President as a formal head of a parliamentary executive. Ordinance and emergency powers are not personal; they ride on the Council. Five-year tenure, electoral college, and Article 61 impeachment block self-perpetuation. Courts can test whether an act was truly on advice, so dictatorship has no constitutional door.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2020 · UPGS2 · 8 marks
Critically analyse the role of the Inter-State Council in promoting Co-operative Federalism in India.
Union and the States
Article 263 and the 1990 Presidential Order created the Inter-State Council after Sarkaria. It is a political forum for Centre–State and inter-State coordination, not a court. It can record disputes and recommend; it cannot bind the Union like a statute. Infrequent meetings and a PM-chaired, recommendatory design weaken its role. GST Council and fiscal bodies now often bargain harder than this Council.
Q4 · UPSC Mains 2020 · UPGS2 · 8 marks
'Article 32 is the soul of the Indian Constitution.' Explain it in brief.
Indian Constitution
Ambedkar called Article 32 the soul because rights need a guaranteed court. It is itself a Fundamental Right to move the Supreme Court. The five writs give a constitutional, not merely civil, remedy. It is suspendable only as the Constitution allows, mainly via Article 359. Judicial review under Article 32 is part of the basic structure.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.