Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Distinguish between judicial activism and judicial restraint.
Advertisements
Solution 1
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing approaches. It is related to the judicial system of a country, and it is a means to check against the misuse of the power of government or any constitutional body. The difference between the two is as follows:
- Judicial activism refers to the interpretation of the Constitution to support current values and conditions. Conversely, judicial restraint delimits the powers of the judges to strike down a law.
- In judicial restraint, the court should support every action of the Congress and the state legislatures unless it is found to be violating the Constitution of the country. In judicial restraint, the courts usually submit to interpretations of the Constitution by the Congress or any other constitutional body. In the case of judicial activism, the judges have the power to amend any injustice, specifically when the other constitutional bodies do not act. Hence, judicial activism has a major role in formulating social policies pertaining to issues such as the protection of the rights of an individual, public morality, civil rights, and political unfairness.
- Judicial restraint and judicial activism have different objectives. Judicial restraint helps to maintain a balance among the three organs of government, viz., the judiciary, executive, and legislative. The judges and the court are encouraged to review a current law instead of modifying it. Judicial activism gives them the power to overrule some previous acts or judgments. For example, the Supreme Court or an appellate court has the power to reverse previously taken decisions if they were found to be faulty.
Solution 2
|
Sr. No. |
Judicial Activism |
Judicial Restraint |
| 1. | Judges actively interpret the Constitution to meet current needs. | Judges avoid interfering unless a law violates the Constitution. |
| 2. | Courts can strike down laws or past decisions. | Courts uphold laws unless they are unconstitutional. |
| 3. | Focuses on delivering justice and correcting inaction by other bodies. | Maintains balance between the judiciary, legislature, and executive. |
| 4. | Consider Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases. | Courts defer to the legislature’s interpretation. |
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
The following is a statement about Ecuador. What similarities or differences do you find between this example and the judicial system in India?
“It would be helpful if a body of common law, or judicial precedent, existed that could clarify a journalist’s rights. Unfortunately, Ecuador’s courts don’t work that way. Judges are not forced to respect the rulings of higher courts in previous cases. Unlike the US, an appellate judge in Ecuador (or elsewhere in South America, for that matter) need not provide a written decision explaining the legal basis of a ruling. A judge may rule one way today and the opposite way, in a similar case, tomorrow, without explaining why.”
How is judicial activism related to the protection of fundamental rights? Has it helped in expanding the scope of fundamental rights?
State the appropriate concept for the given statement.
Petition regarding important public concern -
Express your opinion of the following.
Judicial activism is significant today.
______ implies pro-active approach of the judiciary towards prevailing socio-economic and political apathy in the country.
Give one word/term for the following:
An approach to jurisprudence which believes that the courts can and should go beyond the letter of the law and narrow interpretation to consider broader social implications of their decisions.
