6.4. Judicial Activism

Have you heard of the term judicial activism? Or, Public Interest Litigation? Both these terms are often used in the discussions about judiciary in recent times. Many people think that these two things have revolutionised the functioning of judiciary and made it more people-friendly.

Judicial activism refers to the tendency of courts to take an active role in policy-making and to be involved in issues that affect the public interest. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a specific legal tool that allows individuals or groups to file petitions on behalf of those who cannot do so themselves, often focusing on issues that affect the broader community. This approach is seen as a way for the judiciary to engage with and address societal issues directly.

Imagine a community where some residents are very upset because their homes are getting polluted by a nearby factory, but they don’t have the knowledge or resources to fight back. A local lawyer, concerned about this issue, decides to take it to court—not because he’s personally affected, but because he believes in justice for all. This is similar to how Public Interest Litigation works, allowing voices of the voiceless to be heard in the court.

In normal course of law, an individual can approach the courts only if he/she has been personally aggrieved. That is to say, a person whose rights have been violated, or who is involved in a dispute, could move the court of law. This concept underwent a change around 1979. In 1979, the Court set the trend when it decided to hear a case where the case was filed not by the aggrieved persons but by others on their behalf.

Before 1979, only individuals directly affected by a dispute could approach the courts. In that year, a significant change occurred when the Supreme Court decided to hear cases brought by third parties on behalf of those who were unable to voice their own concerns. This expansion of who could bring cases to the court marked the beginning of Public Interest Litigation and made the judicial process more accessible and impactful for societal issues.

Think of it like a school. Normally, only students who are being bullied can complain to the teacher. But imagine if other students, seeing a friend being bullied, could also tell the teacher. This way, more injustices can be reported, and the teacher can help not just a single child, but protect the entire class.

Some Early PILs: In 1979, newspapers published reports about 'under trials'. There were many prisoners in Bihar who had spent long years in jail, longer than what they would have spent if they had been punished for the offences for which they were arrested. This report prompted an advocate to file a petition. The Supreme Court heard this case. It became famous as one of the early Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

This early PIL highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners, many of whom were held in jail for years without trial, leading to injustices in the criminal justice system. The court's decision to take up this case indicated a shift towards a more compassionate understanding of justice, acknowledging broader societal issues rather than purely individual grievances.

Imagine a friend being blamed for something they didn’t do but unable to speak up because they’re too scared. If someone else—like another friend—steps in to tell the teacher what happened, it could lead to the truth being revealed and the innocent friend being freed from unjust blame. This is similar to how PILs amplify the voices of the marginalized.

Judicial activism has had manifold impact on the political system. It has democratised the judicial system by giving not just to individuals but also groups access to the courts. It has forced executive accountability. It has also made an attempt to make the electoral system much more free and fair.

The impact of judicial activism has been profound. It has made the judiciary more responsive to the concerns of the common people, allowing them to participate actively in legal processes. This has encouraged transparency and accountability within the executive branch of government. Additionally, judicial activism has aimed to ensure that elections are conducted fairly, thus promoting a healthier democracy.

Consider a sports game where only a few players used to respond to complaints about unfair play. But now, everyone on the team is encouraged to speak up, making the game fairer for all. Similarly, judicial activism ensures that everyone has a say in the legal system, making the democracy work better for everyone.

There is however a negative side to the large number of PILs and the idea of a proactive judiciary. In the first place it has overburdened the courts. Secondly, judicial activism has blurred the line of distinction between the executive and legislature on the one hand and the judiciary on the other.

While judicial activism has made significant strides in protecting public interests, it has also led to practical challenges such as an overloaded court system. Furthermore, it has sometimes led to confusion about the separation of powers, with the judiciary intervening in areas traditionally managed by the executive, which can upset the balance of power among government branches.

Imagine a school where the head teacher makes rules about everything, even things that should be decided by the class teachers. If the head teacher steps too far into those roles, it can confuse everyone and make the school less organized. Likewise, when the judiciary oversteps its boundaries, it can create tension within the government structure.

--