SATHEE: Judicial Review and Judicial Activism

Judicial Review and Judicial Activism

Article 13 of the Constitution of India:
- Prohibits the state from making any law that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights.
- Empowers the Supreme Court to declare any such law as void.
Article 226:
- Grants the High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Article 32:
- Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Often referred to as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Concept Introduced: 1973, in the * Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala* case.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the basic structure doctrine is part of the Constitution and cannot be amended.
Key Points:
- The basic structure includes the supremacy of the Constitution, secularism, democracy, rule of law, and fundamental rights.
- It is a judicially created doctrine, not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
- It serves as a check against parliamentary sovereignty.

Important Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973.
Basic Structure Doctrine is a cornerstone of judicial review.
Article 13 is the main constitutional provision for judicial review.
Judicial Review is a tool for protecting fundamental rights and maintaining constitutional supremacy.

Judicial Activism refers to the practice of courts interpreting the Constitution in a way that expands the scope of judicial power.
It involves the judiciary taking an active role in addressing social, economic, and political issues.
It is often contrasted with Judicial Restraint, where the judiciary limits its role to interpreting the law as written.

Proactive Interpretation: Courts interpret the Constitution in a manner that reflects contemporary values and societal needs.
Social Justice: Courts often intervene in areas such as education, environment, and human rights.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A major tool for judicial activism, allowing individuals to approach courts for redressal of grievances.
Creation of New Rights: Courts have recognized rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, such as the right to privacy, life with dignity, etc.

Case	Year	Key Issue	Outcome
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation	1985	Right to livelihood of slum dwellers	Recognition of right to life and livelihood
Vishaka v. Rajasthan	1997	Sexual harassment at workplace	Directives issued for workplace safety
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India	2017	Right to privacy	Right to privacy recognized as a fundamental right
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India	2018	Decriminalization of homosexuality	Legalization of same-sex relationships

Judicial Activism is often criticized for overstepping judicial boundaries.
PIL is a major instrument of judicial activism.
Right to Privacy was recognized in 2017.
Right to Life and Livelihood was recognized in 1985.
Judicial Activism is a subject of debate in competitive exams, often linked to constitutional law and human rights.

Aspect	Judicial Review	Judicial Activism
Definition	Judicial power to review the validity of laws	Active role of judiciary in shaping policy and social issues
Focus	Ensuring laws conform to constitutional provisions	Expanding the scope of rights and social justice
Legal Basis	Articles 13, 226, 32	Interpretation of Constitution and public interest
Examples	Declaring laws unconstitutional	Recognizing new rights, issuing directives on social issues
Controversy	Generally seen as constitutional duty	Often criticized for overreach and judicial overstepping

Judicial Review is a constitutional mechanism to ensure laws conform to the Constitution.
Basic Structure Doctrine prevents the Parliament from amending the Constitution in a way that undermines its core principles.
Judicial Activism involves the judiciary taking an active role in social and political matters.
PIL is a key tool for judicial activism.
Important Cases: Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Vishaka (1997), Puttaswamy (2017), Navtej Singh Johar (2018).