Balancing The Scales: Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Overreach In The Indian Context
- IJLLR Journal
- Jul 14, 2025
- 2 min read
Updated: Jul 16, 2025
Melanie Veera Saldanha, BBA LLB (Hons.), VIT Chennai
1. ABSTRACT
Indian judiciary has remained the sentinel of democracy as well as the guardian of fundamental rights for decades now. It is now an institution that could shape the public opinion, play a role in policy making, and contain the executive as well as legislature all these years. This change has been marked by the rise of judicial activism—a development where the judiciary interferes in a positive role to address social injustices, widen the scope of rights, and provide for effective governance, particularly when the other state institutions fail to do so. Judicial activism has produced numerous landmark judgments that have transformed Indian society, encouraged constitutional values, and empowered the downtrodden. It has also been a key in enforcing gender equality, transparency of governance, environment protection, and the right to life and dignity. The concept gained prominence in the post- Emergency era, specifically by striving for the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), due to which the gate of justice swung open for those who could not directly access the courts.
However, the assertive approach of the judiciary hasn't gone unrestrained. When judicial activity begins encroaching upon the rightful domain of the legislature or the executive, they are referred to as judicial overreach. This phrase implies overstepping constitutional boundaries in such a way that the judiciary begins performing functions outside what is considered appropriate for it under the regime of separation of powers. Judicial overreach can destabilize democratic governance, erode people's confidence in the workings of the institutions, and produce results that are not technologically or politically valid. Detractors argue that such events disrupt the equilibrium embedded in the constitution and foster judicial dominance rather than judicial independence.
The current research paper explores the thin line between judicial overreach and judicial activism within the Indian context. It provides a critical analysis of the judicial behavior over time, from one of strict judicial restraint to that of interventionist assertiveness. The paper discusses consequential constitutional doctrines such as the Basic Structure Doctrine and Article 142, which have vested greater powers in the judiciary but also created concern with untrammeled power. Through the analysis of landmark judgments—classic and controversial—the paper illustrates the growing role of the judiciary in India's polity. Trends like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India are analyzed for their progressive implications, while judgments like the prohibition of liquor along highways and the Sabarimala judgment are faulted for cases of overreach.
