Judicial Activism, Overreach & Constitutional Balance: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis
- IJLLR Journal
- 7 days ago
- 2 min read
Snigdha Sharma, School of Law, Lovely Professional University, Punjab
ABSTRACT
In all constitutional democracies, the judiciary is placed in a contradictory position, entrusted with the special task of keeping the excesses of the other branches in check, but at the same time the court is also subject to constitutional constraints. In Indian context, The Supreme Court has grown into a largely interpretive body to become a body that actively influences public policy, protects rights and fills in the gaps of legislative gaps. Whilst judicial activism has encouraged social equity and strengthened constitutional stability, it has also raised concerns about overstepping constitutional boundaries, especially when courts seem to involve themselves into the functional territory of the legislature/executive. The threshold between these two tendencies is currently ambiguous at a theoretical level, and is the subject of normative debate.
The present research sets out to do an in-depth study of this ambiguous line. The paper aims to make a logical attempt to distinguish between acceptable judicial innovation and illegitimate encroachment by examining the theory of the constitution, historic knowledge of jurisprudence, and comparative lessons from the United States and the United Kingdom. It strictly examines the instruments like public interest litigation (PIL) and the basic-structure doctrine in order to ascertain the role they play in the expansion of judicial authority and also to see if adequate safeguards are in place to prevent their abuse.
The proposed L.I.N.E. framework, i.e., Legal Integrity, Institutional Necessity and Non-Encroachment, is a normative and evaluative paradigm to assess judicial activity. The concept asserts that the intervention of courts must be based on the language and intent of the law of the country, it is allowed only where there has been institutional failure and must always maintain the balance of the powers. An understanding of the judgments of contemporary judges provides a middle course which validates conscientious activity while prevents or restrains democratic excesses.
This research seeks to contribute to the debate about judicial responsibility, ethical boundaries and the changing role of codes in the governance of the 21st century by stating that judicial power within the framework of principled boundaries strengthens, rather than undermining democracy.
Keywords: Judicial Activism, Judicial overreach, L.I.N.E. Framework, Constitutional Democracy, Separation of powers, Public Interest litigation, Basic Structure Doctrine, Comparative Law.
