We are providing many paragraphs, long essay in very simple language with the boundaries of different words here. Here you can find Essay on Judicial Activism in India in English language for students in 1100 words. In this article cover Topic :The meaning of judicial activism, Scope of judicial activism in Indian Constitution, The history of judicial activism in India, Criticism against judicial activism, The causes of judicial activism in India and Supreme Court's directions to control judicial activism.
The word 'judicial activism' was meant for Arthur Schillinger Jr. in his essay 'Supreme Court: 1947', which was first published in Fortune Magazine in 1947. Although the history of judicial activism is the date of 1803 when the concept of judicial review was developed by Chief Justice Marshal in a matter of celebration of Marbari v. Madison. The emergence of the judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is known as judicial activism.
Judicial activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision, in which the judges allow their personal views about public policy among other factors to guide their decision. The Constitution of India divides powers into the government in three branches, i.e. the legislature, executive and judiciary. This happens when the judiciary moves in executive and legislative shoes and instead of explaining the laws, instead of interpreting the law, it is considered as a judicial activism.
Unlike the American Constitution, Indian Constitution automatically provides scope or place for the emergence of judicial activism on the basis of 13, 32, 226, 141 and 142. Article 13 provides detailed powers in the judicial review of the Supreme Court, Article 32 and Article 226 makes the supreme court and the High Court respectively as patrons and guarantors of fundamental rights, Article 141 indicates that declaring power law of the Supreme Court And it is not enacted, but to explain the law during its work, this law is bad Consumer Article 142, the Supreme Court is required to complete justice enables any reason or earlier pending cases to exercise its jurisdiction to pass the order or in the order form.
The reasons for the development of judicial activism include the expansion of the rights of hearing in the administrative process, without excessive delegation, extension of judicial review on administration, promotion of open government, indiscriminate exercise of contempt power, To achieve economic, social and educational objectives and to pass the irreversible orders, its lost Expanding the standard rules of interpretation.
The noun of judicial activism was explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Golananath which was recognized in it, in which the court had given the comprehensive beneficial explanation of Article 13 of the Constitution, the judicial theory of possible speech was determined. But in real terms, the history of judicial activism in India began with the introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the second half of the seventies.
The concept of PIL in India started by Justice Krishna Krishna Iyer and PN Bhagwati. The term 'public interest litigation' means to remove any litigation or some public grievances organized for the benefit of the public. In simple words, this means that any public enthusiast can file a petition in the Supreme Court and move the court for public reasons.
The concept of public relations is in line with the principles contained in Article 39A of the Constitution of India to protect and distribute immediate social justice with the help of law. In the case of SP Gupta versus Union of India, Justice Bhagwati, 1981 (transfer of judges) established the validity of the PIL.
A famous case of judicial activism in India is the decision of majority in the Keshavanand Bharati case (the issue of fundamental rights). Apart from this, the case of National Human Rights Commission versus Arunachal Pradesh state, 2G spectrum case 2012 is important for judicial activism.
If we look at the decision made by the Supreme Court in many PILs, it is clear that most PILs are spread in environmental pollution, inmates with decisions, personal freedom, corruption etc. The court has given several important instructions to the executive. Examples of PILs as well as the legislature
It is a court of law to avoid any change in the PIL strategy system. Another criticism is that judicial activism is coming between the concept of separation of power.
It is also believed that the issue of pending cases in the PIL will increase further. According to another thought, the misuse of PIL has reached ridiculous phase and a petition has been filed on minor issues such as student-teacher strike, shortage of buses, painting of street signs and so on.
Judicial activism in India, in its true meaning, is the date of commencement of the Constitution. Therefore, the study of judicial activism in India from the historical perspective is limited to the duration of the period 1950 to 1977, after the period 1978, after the emergency or current perspective.
Judicial activism has increased mainly due to the failure of the executive and the legislatures to take action. Second, it has also arisen due to the fact that there is no doubt that the legislature and the executive have failed to distribute them.
Third, this is because the whole system has been affected by ineffectiveness and inactivity. Infringement of basic human rights 1.0 has also been motivated for judicial activism. Finally, due to misuse and misuse of certain provisions of the Constitution, judicial activism has gained importance
During the past decade, many examples of judicial activism have gained prominence. Bhopal Gas Tragedy and Jessica Lal murder case are included in the top two. The latter was open to all and closed case. Money and muscle power tried to win well but recently, with the help of judicial activism, the matter came to a strong decision.
In the 1980s, two notable developments in the Indian law system provided a strong incentive for judicial activism in India. Existing environmental laws were expanded in the country and judicial activity started through public interest litigation, with earnest money in India.
In keeping with the allegations and to convert 'judicial activism' into 'judicial overratch', the Supreme Court issued the following instructions
- The court should encourage real and correct PIL and effectively discourage and prevent public interest litigation filed for external views.
- Before considering a PIL, the court must verify the identity of the first petitioner.
- The court must be fully satisfied that there is sufficient public interest before entertaining on the petition.
In short, the power of judicial review is recognized as part of the infrastructure of the Indian Constitution. The role of the executive of the judiciary lies in that power. Judicial activism is absolutely essential for democracy because without a conscious and enlightened judiciary, democracy will be reduced to an empty shell. When our elected representatives have failed to give you a welfare state, then let the judiciary spring. The judiciary should bear in mind that the only thing is that whenever the common man is going to get justice, then he should not go to the boundaries set by the purity, that is, the Constitution.