Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Judicial activism in India

Judicial activism in India

Ratings: (0)|Views: 217|Likes:
Published by Nirankar Royal
Imprtance of Judicial Activism in Indian Context
Imprtance of Judicial Activism in Indian Context

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Nirankar Royal on Jan 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





[Type the document title]
Submitted to: Dr. Shailendra Nigam
For the past several decades, the Indian Judiciary has played a pivotal role not only insafeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens of India, but by creative interpretation of laws aswell because of which we have witnessed various landmark decisions. In a country plagued bypolitical incompetency and lethargisity of executives, Judiciary has increased its purview bygetting involved in law making and interpretation process. By doing so, the Supreme Court haspassed landmark judgments in topics ranging from fundamental rights, political elections,environment, corruption to reservation given to backward cast, Taj Corridor case, 2G scam anddistribution of food grains to citizens below poverty line. With growing ineptness of governmentto tackle some of the prevailing issues, it is only time for the Indian Judiciary to adopt JudicialActivism in its full form.
Judicial dispute settlement appeals for a variety of reasons. First is the presumed impartiality of the arbitrator who decides the dispute. Second is the accessibility to justice and the opportunitygiven to complaining parties to put forward their claims. The impartial judge presiding over amatter brought before him by persons to whom he owes no other obligation than to render toeach their just deserts, is guided by certain rules by which he must abide. He must first beconscious of the duty to decide the matter before him within the limits of his jurisdiction and notencroach on the power of others. He must comply with all relevant legal provisions, laws, by-laws, codes, and legal principles, the rules of interpretation of which are also relevant to thedetermination of the matter. To travel beyond the boundaries of these determinants is to engagein a willful and deliberate disregard for his limitations, and an abuse of the exercise of his judicial powers. In organized civil society, and in democratic governments in particular, althoughthe judge is called to do justice, he receives no credit if in attempting to do justice he encroaches
upon the powers of others. Theses „others‟ are those who make laws for the society,
also knownas legislators, and those who take the decisions on running the society, i.e. executives.Deference to the powers of other arms of government is not the only limitation on thecontemporary judge. A judge must not allow personal prejudice, bias or even personalexperience irrespective of relevance, to influence and reflect in his judgement. In anglo-American legal jurisprudence there is further deference to be made by a judge, to any applicabledecisions of other judges before him. He is also expected to defer to the decisions of courtshigher in the hierarchy. The latin maxim
stare decisis non quieta et movere
, (to stand bydecisions and not to disturb settled matters) binds judges in these legal systems to abide by pastdecisions, a concept which provides for certainty and predictability in judicial interpretation.Although civil legal systems are without the background of common law in which context this
star decisis
principle evolved, civil law judges are not wont to proceed with complete disregardfor relevant past decisions in determining present cases. However, there may arise newcircumstances, disputes involving issues that have never been considered before, and ambiguouslegal provisions. Can the judge then delve into his powers of rule interpretation, dig deep into hisvast milieu of experience, apply his keen knowledge of legal philosophy, or rely on his personalconvictions to reach a decision?
Legal scholars and jurists respond in negative. This would be „Judicial Activism‟, for to do any
of this is for a judge to impose his personal preferences in his decisions to such extent as toultimately negate the law as a body of rules to guide conduct.
But what is „Judicial Activism‟?
Before that we need to ask what is the role of a judge? Is it to merely to interpret the law as itexists or to make laws? While the conservatives suggests that making laws is the function of legislation and enacting them is of executive, the judiciary should not encroach on the power of other pillars of democracy and instead interpret the existing laws. But the liberals conclude that

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->