JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION- A WELFARE POLICY OR POLITICS

 

INTRODUCTION OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

The term Judicial Activism was first given by historian Arthur Schlesinger in January 1947. The practise of judicial activism originated and evolved in the United States. The evidence of judicial activism in India can be traced back to 1893. It’s foundation in India was laid down by Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N Bhagwati, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy and Justice D.A Desai. Judicial Activism was a lethargic concept in India earlier however simultaneously it has become an integral part of judiciary. It refers to when judiciary takes an active role to protect the rights of the citizens and welfare of the state. When amid the three pillars of the government, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, two of the pillars i.e., the legislature and the executive attempt to overpower themselves ignoring the frame of constitution and soul of democracy, judiciary comes into play through the power provided in the constitution and fills the void of responsibility and power created by both the pillars. There are two ways by which a law can be made, either by legislation passed by the parliament or by the judicial interpretation of a pre-existing law. Judicial Activism is an outcome of these judiciary elucidated laws. Judicial Activism occurs when the courts have the ability to review the state action. Judicial activism is guided by the following two theories of (i) Theory of vacuum filling and (ii) Theory of Social Want. 

SOME FAMOUS CASES OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM INCLUDE:

· Kesavananda Bharti Case (1973): The top court of India declared that the executive has no right to mediate and interfere with the basic structure of the constitution.

·  A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madaras (1950): The Supreme Court dismissed the altercation that to strip a person of his liberty or life not only the process authorized by law for doing so must be adhered to but also such process must be just, logical and fair.

· Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983): A letter by Journalist, directed to the Supreme Court talking about the custodial brutality of women prisoners in jail. The court dealt with that letter as a writ petition and took notice of that matter.

INTRODUCTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Public Interest Litigation means the lawsuit filed in the court of law for safeguarding the Public Interest. The conception of Public Interest Litigation has been borrowed from American Jurisprudence. It was invented in the 1960s in USA, to give legal representation to the earlier disadvantaged groups such as the poor, marginalized groups, backward classes, the minorities etc. The origin of PIL can be associated with the origin of Judicial Activism. It had helped to highlight some big and huge cases. Mrs. Maneka Gandhi’s case brought a big change in the area of judicial activism and gave rise to Public Interest Litigation. Previously court adhered to the principle of locus standi(right to bring any case to the court) but in early 1980s Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N. Bhagwati formed the rules for efficient access of grievances of poor, marginalized and disadvantaged classes. Following this many significant judgements were given out of the filed   PIL’s.

SOME IMPORTANT PIL’S WERE SEEN IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:

·       · Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): The first ever PIL was reported in this case. It is the most famous and landmark case as it talks about the human rights of prisoners in India. It gave a comprehensive explanation of Article 21 and mentioned that a speedy trial is a basic right of every citizen.

·    · S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): This case is landmark because in this case it was held that a lawyer also has a locus standi to file a writ for the PIL. This opened the way for PIL petitions by the advocates.

· Parmanand v. Union of India (1989): This case is concerned with hospitals which were hesitant to treat accident and legal cases. This case ensures that the utmost objective of the hospital should be saving lives and not running away from troubles.

CONCLUSION

Even pure gold is subjected to censure in this world which is the case of both Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation.

As Aharon Barak has said, “A judge must maintain the delicate balance, something that requires some measure of activism and some measure of restraint.” In view of the abovementioned statement, the remark that the judiciary has overstepped its limit is undefendable. The Court has to be very much cautious while deciding whether to perform legislative or executive functions, but many times judges do not show judicial restraint while deciding cases that are political or concern larger public sentiments. Additionally, the judiciary should strictly follow ‘de minimus non curat lex’ (“law is not concerned with small things”) so that trivial matters are disposed off at the initial level and the fine line remains maintained. The fine line needs to be reconciled and addressed with the judiciary endeavoring to not enter the lanes of other organs of the government and restricting itself to the activism and not adventurism.

Public Interest Litigation has given results which were unimaginable three decades ago. However, the judiciary should be cautious enough in the implementation of PIL’s to avert Judicial Overreach which transgresses the principle of Separation of Power. No doubt it is important for the existence of a welfare state however, there are certain loopholes which should be filled to continue belief in PIL’s. The answerability of PIL activists should be expanded more so that the misuse of PIL can be avoided and will subsequently lower the burden of the overburdened judiciary.