essay on judicial activism upsc

Judicial Restraint is the antithesis of Judicial Activism. Judicial Restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. In short, the courts should interpret the law and not intervene in policy-making. The original intent of those who wrote the constitution.

Judicial Activism in India - Read the method and significance, a detailed explanation of the pros and cons of this concept. Know more about judicial activism vs judicial restraint. Also, download Judicial Activism notes PDF for IAS Exam. For UPSC 2024 preparation, follow BYJU'S.

Judicial Activism is a part of the Indian Polity subject in the Mains General Studies Paper-II syllabus. It is also a part of the General Studies Paper-1 of the UPSC Prelims Syllabus. In this article, we shall study judicial activism in detail, as required for the UPSC exam. The UPSC aspirants can take the help of Testbook's UPSC CSE Coaching.

Promoting the rule of law: By reviewing and potentially invalidating laws and actions that are deemed to be unlawful or unconstitutional, judicial activism helps to ensure that the government operates within the bounds of the law. Strengthening democracy: Judicial activism can help to prevent the abuse of power by the government and promote ...

Judicial activism. Judicial activism refers to a philosophy or approach in which judges interpret the law in a way that goes beyond the text of the Constitution or other legal statutes, and which involves the judge taking an active role in shaping public policy or social change. Through activism, the Judiciary tries to protect the rights of ...

Activism can be either conservative or liberal:. Conservative activism tends to narrow the scope of interpretation to restrict government or individual rights.; Liberal activism tends to broaden the scope of interpretation to expand individual rights in keeping with progressive social norms.; Evolution of Judicial Activism in India and its forms: The Constitution ensures "independence of ...

Judicial activism refers to a proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and shaping laws, often to advance social justice and protect individual rights. It involves judges taking an assertive stance, going beyond traditional interpretations to address societal issues. While it can enhance justice and accountability, critics argue that it ...

Judicial Activism refers to a judicial approach where judges interpret the law broadly, and sometimes go beyond the traditional role of interpreting the law to shape social, economic, or political policies. In other words, it is a judicial philosophy where judges use their powers to advance specific values or objectives, rather than simply applying the law to the facts of a case.

Document Description: Landmark Cases on Judicial Activism in India for UPSC 2024 is part of Indian Polity for UPSC CSE preparation. The notes and questions for Landmark Cases on Judicial Activism in India have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Landmark Cases on Judicial Activism in India covers topics like ...

When Judges Legislate. 16 Nov 2018. 9 min read. Tags: GS Paper - 2. Judiciary. (This editorial is based on the article "When judges legislate" which appears in The Hindu on 16th November 2018) It is being claimed that, in many recent judgments, the Supreme Court has become hyper-activist in making laws. Neither is the broad separation of ...

Judicial activism: It can be defined as a philosophy of judicial decision making where by judges allow their personal views regarding a public policy instead of constitutionalism.. Judicial activism: Positives. Upholds Constitutional morality: An important case which employed this concept in an innovative manner was the Naz Foundation Case which used the concept of constitutional morality to ...

Judicial activism gives jurists the right to strike down any legislation or rule against the precedent if it goes against the Constitution. Failure on part of the legislative and executive wings of the Government to provide 'good governance' makes judicial activism an imperative. Background. Judicial activism began when access to courts was ...

It is an extreme form of judicial activism where arbitrary and unreasonable interventions are made by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive. The court encroaches upon the role of the legislature by making laws. Instances: Directing the Centre to create a new policy to handle drought.

Way forward. Judicial activism means the proactive role played by the judiciary in the protection of the rights of citizens and in the promotion of justice in the society. In other words, it is the role played by the judiciary to force the other two organs of the government (legislature and executive) to discharge their constitutional duties.

Parameters. Judicial Review. Judicial Activism. Meaning. The power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. [UPSC 2017] The proactive role played by the judiciary in the protection of the rights of citizens and the promotion of justice in society.

Introduction . Judicial activism signifies the proactive role of the Judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens. In India, the Supreme Court and the High courts are vested with the power to examine the constitutionality of any law, and if such a law is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, the court can declare the law as unconstitutional.

Judicial activism is a proactive approach of judiciary to uphold constitutional values and protect citizens' rights whereas Judicial overreach refers to situations where the judiciary exceeds its mandate or encroaches upon the domain of the executive or legislative branches of government. The characterization of a court decision as judicial activism or judicial overreach can be subjective and ...

Conclude with a balancing approach. Answer: Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to use their judicial power to protect or expand individual rights, social justice, or public interest, even if it means going beyond the letter of the law or the original intent of the constitution. Judicial overreach, on the other hand, refers to ...

Judicial Review is the process by which the Judiciary reviews the validity of laws passed by the legislature. From where does the power of Judicial Review come: From the Constitution of India itself (Article 13). The power of judicial review is evoked to protect and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.

Judicial Activism UPSC. Judicial activism refers to a proactive role taken by judges in interpreting and applying the law, often going beyond literal statutory interpretation to address broader issues of social justice, individual rights, and public interest. ... UPSC Essay Question Paper 2024; RPSC RAS Apply Online 2024; SSC MTS Admit Card ...

Judicial activism refers to the interference of the judiciary in the legislative and executive fields. It mainly occurs due to the non-activity of the other organs of the government. Judicial activism is a way through which relief is provided to the disadvantaged and aggrieved citizens. Judicial activism is pro­viding a base for policy making ...

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint. Recently, retiring Delhi HC Chief Justice stressed the need for a balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint. There is always a gap between justice and law. Merely because the law is enacted, there is no guarantee that justice will be done. If there is any gap, a judge has to fill up the gap.

Judicial activism and restraint are two sides of the same coin when it comes to unbridled innovation and pragmatic judgement. Judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint. Judicial activism means courts going beyond what is established by law to protect civil rights, on the other hand, Judicial restraint means strictly abiding ...