Revision summary
Judicial activism uses Articles 32 and 226 and PIL to fill governance gaps. First demerit: it blurs the separation of powers and lets judges write policy. Second demerit: PIL can be abused and crowd out ordinary criminal and civil work. Third demerit: courts lack ministerial data, so sweeping directions often fail on the ground. The cost is weaker Cabinet accountability and later political backlash.
Model answer
Introduction
Judicial activism is the Court using Articles 32 and 226, public interest litigation, and continuing mandamus to fill gaps that legislatures and executives leave. Three demerits follow when that gap-filling becomes a habit.
Body
Three demerits
- It strains the separation of powers in Articles 50, 122, 212, and the scheme of Parts V and VI, because unelected judges begin to write policy that Article 245 assigned to legislatures.
- Public interest litigation under the post-SP Gupta and Bandhua Mukti Morcha line can be misused by busybody petitioners, so dockets fill with governance writs while ordinary under-trial work waits.
- Courts lack the budget data and administrative cadre of a ministry, so directions on police reform, pollution, or school midday meals can be unworkable and then invite contempt politics instead of compliance.
Why those demerits matter
- When the Supreme Court or a High Court runs a policy for years, the political executive stops owning failure, which weakens accountability under Article 75 and Article 164.
- Frequent overreach invites the charge of a collegium State and later political pushback through appointments and delayed compliance.
- Activism that ignores the limits drawn in cases such as Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Asif Hameed risks turning rights adjudication into a third chamber.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD A[Judicial activism] --> S[Separation of powers strain] A --> P[PIL misuse and delay] A --> C[Unworkable directions] S --> G[Weaker political accountability] P[P] --> G[G] C[C] --> G[G]
Conclusion
The three demerits of judicial activism are invasion of the legislative-executive field, misuse and congestion of PIL, and administratively weak decrees. Activism remains useful against rights vacuums only if the Court stays a referee under Articles 32 and 226, not a standing administration.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
How is the power of the Governor to pardon different from the power of the President under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution?
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q4). View answer →
-
Is every PIL an instance of judicial overreach?
No. PIL that enforces a clear Fundamental Right is ordinary constitutional review. Overreach begins when the Court designs a policy that the text left to the legislature.
-
Did the Court itself warn against excessive activism?
Yes. Later benches have said PIL is not a pill for every ill and that the judiciary must not become a super-executive.
Same topic · past papers
UPPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS2 · 8 marks · Solution
Why the Preamble is called the Philosophy of the Indian Constitution?
Indian Constitution
The Preamble compresses Nehru’s Objective Resolution into the Constitution’s moral charter. It names popular sovereignty and a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. Justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity guide Fundamental Rights, DPSPs, and duties. Kesavananda uses the Preamble as a key to the basic structure. It aids interpretation; it does not itself confer enforceable rights.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS2 · 8 marks · Solution
Why the 42nd Amendment is called a revision of the Indian Constitution?
Indian Constitution
The Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, is called a mini-Constitution because of its range. It changed the Preamble and added Article 51A duties and new DPSPs. It bound the President, extended House terms, and moved several subjects to the Concurrent List. It tried to shield constitutional amendments from judicial review. The Forty-fourth Amendment and Minerva Mills rolled much of that rewriting back.
Q4 · UPSC Mains 2023 · UPGS2 · 8 marks · Solution
How is the power of the Governor to pardon different from the power of the President under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 gives the President clemency over Union offences, courts-martial, and death sentences. Article 161 gives the Governor clemency only where the State’s executive power extends. The Governor cannot pardon a death sentence; only suspend, remit, or commute it. Both act on Council of Ministers’ advice, not as a personal monarch. Armed-forces and Union-law sentences stay off the Governor’s file.