Judicial Activism -

Judicial activism is when judges go beyond strict legal interpretation and proactively interpret laws to ensure justice, liberty, and equality.
It includes reading new rights into existing laws or issuing guidelines in legislative vacuum.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established Basic Structure Doctrine.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded Article 21 — Right to Travel abroad.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Laid down Vishaka Guidelines against workplace sexual harassment.
NALSA v. Union of India (2014): Recognized transgender rights and right to self-identity.

Protects individual rights: Especially of minorities and vulnerable sections.
Promotes rule of law: Prevents arbitrary government actions.
Strengthens democracy: Upholds accountability of executive/legislature.
Brings social change: Catalyzed laws like Sexual Harassment Act, Transgender Act.
Keeps Constitution dynamic: Ensures relevance in changing societal contexts.
Checks government excess: Prevents unconstitutional or unjust actions by other branches.

It occurs when the judiciary intrudes into the domain of the legislature or executive, violating the separation of powers.
It is seen as an excessive stretch of judicial activism.

Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2016): Mandatory National Anthem in cinemas.
Liquor Ban near highways (2017): Banned liquor sales within 500m of highways — considered administrative overreach.
Arun Gopal v. Union of India (2017): Restrictions on fireworks without legislative mandate.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2018): Banned sale of BS-4 vehicles post-March 2020, overriding executive decision-making.

Violates separation of powers: Disturbs balance among organs of government.
Burden on judiciary: Takes up policy issues, delaying genuine cases.
Lack of expertise: Judges may lack knowledge in complex policy domains.
Erodes accountability: No democratic mechanism to question judges.
Creates instability: Leads to unpredictable governance.
Weakens public trust: Perception of judiciary acting arbitrarily or politically.

It implies judiciary limits its role and respects the domains of legislature and executive.
Advocated to maintain balance, predictability, and respect for democratic setup.

Key Case:

Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf v. Chander Hass (2007): SC stressed need for restraint to preserve separation of powers.

Criteria	Judicial Activism	Judicial Overreach
Intent	Enforces constitutional rights	Controls policy or administrative matters
Scope	Fills legislative gaps or enforces laws	Enters executive/legislative domain
Example	Vishaka Guidelines	Cinema anthem rule
Impact	Positive social/legal transformation	Undermines institutional harmony

Judicial Activism