SESSION 2021-22

LLM 102 Comparative Public Law

PROJECT ON:

Judicial Activism in India

SUBMITTED UNDER SUPERVISION: SUBMITTED BY;

Abhishek Bishnoi Sir Asmita Bhardwaj

(FACULTY OF LAW) LLM CORPORATE

& COMMERCIAL
LAW 1st SEMESTER
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

DECLARATION

I declare that the project entitled “Judicial Activism in India” is the outcome of my own
work conducted under the supervision of Mr. Abhishek Bishnoi at Jagannath University, Jaipur.

I further declare that to the best of my Knowledge the project does not contain any part of any
work, which has been submitted for the award of any degree either in this University or in
another University / Deemed University without proper citation

Asmita Bhardwaj
Dated: -

2
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

CERTIFICATE OF THE SUPERVISOR

This is to certify that the research work entitled “Judicial Activism in India” is the work done
by Asmita Bhardwaj under my guidance and supervision for the Partial fulfillment of the
requirement of LLM degree at Jagannath University.

To the best of my Knowledge and belief the project:

1. embodies the work of the candidate himself;
2. has been duly completed; and
3. Is up to the standard both in respect of contents and language for being referred to the
examiner.

Abhishek Bishnoi
Faculty of Law
Supervisor

3
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express profound gratitude to Abhishek Bishnoi sir for his invaluable support,
encouragement, supervision and useful suggestions throughout this research work. His moral
support and continuous guidance enabled me to complete my work successfully. His intellectual
thrust and blessings motivated me to work rigorously on this study. In fact this study could not
have seen the light of the day if his contribution had not been available. It would be no
exaggeration to say that it is his unflinching faith and unquestioning support that has provided
the sustenance necessary to see it through to its present shape.

Among those who have sustained me over the years with their loyalty and friendship, I would
particularly mention my friends who have always taken a special interest in my work and
unconditional support at each turn of the life.

I express my deep sincere gratitude towards my parents for their blessing, patience, and moral
support for this project.

Asmita Bhardwaj

4
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No Particulars Page No
1 DECLARATION 2
2 CERTIFICATE OF SUPERVISOR 3
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4
5 ABSTRACT & INTRODUCTION 6-9
6 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW 9-10
7 THE JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND JUDICIAL REVIEW 10-11
8 JUDICIAL REVIEW IN A TECHNOCRATIC MODE 11-12
9 BRIEF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS: 12-13
10 JUDGES, ACADEMICIANS, AND AUTHORS ALL HAVE 13-18
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
11 SELF-LEGITIMIZATION THROUGH JUDICIAL ACTIVISM 19-20
12 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION 20-23
13 JUDICIAL REVIEW AND POWER SEPARATION 23
14 REASONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW 23-24
15 LODHA COMMITTEE-IS IT JUDICIAL OVER-REACH? 24-26
16 LODHA PANEL'S DEFENSE 26-27
17 CONCLUSION 27
18 BIBLIOGRAPHY 28

5
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

A STUDY ON JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN INDIA

ABSTRACT

The legal framework protects the Constitution and people's rights from abuses of power by
leaders. It is the court that examines existing legal arrangements in order to address a problem in
a situation where the relevant regulation has become obsolete or insufficient to meet the demands
of significant importance. The court has frequently been criticized for overstepping its bounds
and targeting the authority of other government foundations. Several aspects of the subject have
been thoroughly examined in this research.

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Constitution establishes three branches of government: the Executive, the
Legislature, and the Judiciary. Due to its inherent attempt to fix disputes, the judiciary has
recently gained prominence. A dispute or disagreement here between Executive and the
Legislature is also brought before the higher Judiciary, and the higher Judiciary's decision is
considered final and binding by all. One of the foundations in charge of securing and authorizing
individuals' rights, as well as protecting their freedoms, is the legal executive. The job of the
legal executive, as previously stated, is to decipher and pronounce the law, not to make it. In any
case, in a rapidly changing social climate, it is the responsibility of the court to shape the law so
that it remains relevant in an evolving setting, because updating the regulations can be a time-
consuming process. As a result, despite the legal executive's impartiality, the convictions and
conclusions of the legal executive have a significant impact on the country's survival. The
appointed authorities should breathe new life into the law by making new disclosures while
assessing the case. If judges were hesitant to engage in judicial activism, precedent-based
regulation would not exist. The court has the ability to purposefully direct events in this way.
The Supreme Court of India and various Indian High Courts have recently issued decisions that
are widely regarded as departing from previous points of reference. These decisions aren't meant
to be standard; rather, they're meant to reflect social patterns and suggest new activities for the
organization and its officials, a process known as "Judicial activism." Judicial Activism has
piqued the interest of constitutional scholars, legal luminaries, and others. Parliamentarians and

6
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

councils have expressed concern that the legal executive has occasionally overstepped its bounds
by disrupting leadership and administrative spaces.

In general, the specialist seeks guides to calm the alarm bells that have been ringing in some
quarters, and to dispel the myths that judicial activism is an unstoppable infection that has
recently afflicted our legal system, or that a large number of rebel judges has slipped on us,
wreaking havoc on our country. With this as a backdrop, the scientist concentrates on the role of
the legal executive. Numerous fundamental rights that are not expressly stated in the section on
Fundamental Rights have been reasoned or spread out by the Supreme Court. This legal exercise
is based on the possibility that certain unidentified rights are dormant or inborn in the clearly
stated guarantees of our original architects. Freedom of press, for example, was thought to be
inextricably linked to the security of right to expression and articulation in a few Supreme Court
decisions dating back to 1950. As a result, freedom of press is now considered a fundamental
right and one of the pillars of a democratic system. A legal researcher extols the virtues of
dynamic legal comprehension. Other essential rights derived by our Supreme Court, particularly
under Article 21, that are not explicitly referenced in the constitution include the right to work,
the right to security, the option to travel abroad, the right to instruction, the independence from
terrible and cruel discipline or treatment, the right to wellbeing, and the option to shield, which
includes the right to progression, the right to a fair preliminary, the right to an expedient
preliminary, and the right to an expedient preliminary. As a result, while the Supreme Court
serves a useful purpose, it also has the potential to act as an extremist, overstepping and abusing
boundaries, among other things. Is there anyone who can credibly argue against this strong legal
approach that has increased people's fundamental freedoms? Nothing unusual has happened as a
result of understanding the constitution's provisions as a positive turn of events; rather, it is a
commonplace use of legal power that is only required for legal examination.

The term "judicial activism" refers to the legal system's proactive role in protecting peoples'
fundamental & civil rights. The court transcends its traditional role as a dispute arbitrator and
becomes a member of the nation's framework through judicial activism, establishing standards
and guidelines for the leader and council to follow Writ locale. Residents have sought legislative
review and expressed legitimate concerns about the legality of specific pieces of legislation
under the Indian Constitution through the court's writ ward. The central idea is that courts will

7
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

overturn legislation that infringes on people's fundamental rights or the Indian Constitution's
guarantee of fair treatment of legislation. As a result, the public accepts that the actions of the
legislative and executive branches can be challenged in court. After carefully evaluating the
leader's direct in terms of fundamental rights and fair treatment, it is also common for the court
to provide an important solution for the resident. In terms of the Separation of Powers, legal
research is essential. The roles of our three branches of government are clearly defined in our
constitution: the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive (not really in a specific order).
According to Article 13 of the constitution, the "State should embrace no regulation that goes
against, compresses, or removes freedoms guaranteed under Part III." This means that, under the
terms, both the Legislature and the Judiciary can support regulations. In any case, under the
concept of governing rules, the court is also given the authority to examine the assembly's
regulations. The Ayodhya Verdict was issued by the High Court of Judicature in Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow. On the 24th and 31st of October 2010, the entire country appeared to
be a military base as a result of the Indian government's extreme caution in preventing common
mobs by granting C.R.P.F., S.R.P.F., and Police power in basic areas across the country. Every
resident was glued to the television, waiting to see how the Ayodhya decision would turn out.
The much-anticipated decision of the Allahabad High Court's three-judge seat had been
announced by the evening, and most people had invited and acknowledged it.

In any case, due to the fact that both the state and federal legislatures acted appropriately in terms
of obligation, the general public is divided as to whether it was a legitimate or political decision.
All I need to know is how the regulation was interpreted and implemented in the current
situation. Without wishing to offend anyone and with the utmost respect for the legitimate
decision, I would like to emphasize that the courts are not intended to make pacification strategy
decisions. No matter how severe, law and order must be maintained, and equity must not only be
done, but also seen to be done. The general public has a strong belief in the strict enforcement of
equity, and I don't think that belief will be shaken by a single decision.1 In and of itself, our
constitution is a work of art. It gave each of the three branches of government distinct abilities:
administrative, leadership, and legal. The powers, honors, and responsibilities of each wing are
undeniable. The council should issue regulations, the chief should authorize them, and the courts

1
Was the Ayodhya Verdict Legal or Political?
Posted by: http://www.legallyindia.com/kirtybhushan40yahoo-com/ on Oct 03, 2010

8
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

should interpret them. There is no hiding or infringing permitted. A Public Interest Litigation
under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution may also be initiated if there is a
disagreement about the requirement of a Fundamental Right. The Supreme Court has expanded
the definition of public interest litigation to include filings by individuals, including feeble and
persecuted groups, who are unable to justify their own rights; second, the court taking an insight
suomoto; and third, public vivacious individuals, all of which are incompatible with the court's
own established concept of "Locus Standi." The public interest has been prioritized by the court
on a few occasions over fundamental rights. This goes against the basic principle that the rights,
not the cures, are the most important. Individual rights and the public good were found to be in
some way balanced by the Supreme Court. PIL had a narrow focus at first, but it has since
expanded to include any area where the court wishes to mediate. Nobody or nothing should be
scandalized, outraged, or sabotaged the power of any court in the administration of justice,
especially when it comes to the role of the media, the legal executive, and its established
freedom, as well as confidence and respect.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW

Since the founding of the constitution, legal review has been a contentious issue. The interchange
of judges2 and the concealment of judges3 are two examples of attempts to quiet this power. The
court has attempted to lay out regulations for inter-country adoption4, rejects inappropriate
behavior of women at work5, rules for the cancellation of child labor, and so on6, in the case of a
treacherous demonstration filed against an individual, and has made compelling
recommendations for their implementation. A number of well-known legal experts have praised
and criticized this regulation. There are two opposing viewpoints. The court, according to one
viewpoint, is intended to serve as a protected gathering. An established court is not bound by the
expectations of the original builders, but may interpret the constitution in light of the

2
Judiciary Made to Measure, N.A Palkhivala(ed.) (M.R. Pai ,1973).
3
S.H Sheth v. India (1976) 17 G.L.R 1017; H.M Seervai, The Emergency, Future Safeguards and the Habeas
Corpus Case: A
Criticism, pp.119-29 (Tripathy,1978)
4
L.K. Pandey v. Union of India, AIR 1986 S.C. 27
5
Vishaka v. State Of Rajasthan, 1997 (6) SCC 241
6
M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others,(1996) 6 SCC 756

9
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

circumstances at the time of interpretation7. This viewpoint has been challenged, and a new one
has emerged, arguing that the court should stick to the first-level approach.8 The majority of
members of the Constitutional Assembly took the final alternative position, which was criticized
for potentially creating a legal advisor's paradise. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar thought the legal review
system was important and endorsed the research done on it9. The constitution's focus, its
essential essence10, became the arrangement for legal examination, particularly writ locally,
which enabled speedy remedies for abuses of basic rights. Examining the Law The United States'
courts were the birthplace of jurisprudence. The Supreme Court established its power to declare
government conduct illegal as a result of Marbury v. Madison11. Despite the fact that it was
rarely used in the Court's early years, the Rehnquist Court has recently made extensive use of the
authority of legal review of government regulation. The Supreme Court has ruled that federal
activities that go beyond the Commerce Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or
that infringe on state authority as guaranteed by the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments, are
unconstitutional in a number of cases. In order to protect people's basic rights, Indian courts
eventually acknowledged this.

THE JUDICIAL SUPREMACY AND JUDICIAL REVIEW

The three branches of government in India's majority rule system, namely the chief, parliament,
and legal executive, each have equal power and function as a watchdog against the other.
Regardless, the court has been granted independence from various services, resulting in efficient
administration. Various sections of the constitution expressly state that the court may act as a
mind in deciding the decisions of the other two branches of government. In Raja Ram Pal v.
Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha12, the Supreme Court was asked whether it had the authority to
decide the substance and scope of the lawmaking body's powers, honors, and insusceptibilities,

7
James M. Beck, The Constitution of United States (1922 cited from Raoul Berger Government by the Judiciary:
The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, p.2 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, 1977).
8
C. Fariman, ―Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights‘; Alexander Bickel, ‗The Original
Understanding
and the Segregation Decision‘,69 Harv. L.R., p.1 (1955).
9
CAD Vol.7, p.700(Official Report Printed by the Loksabha Secretariat, New Delhi)
10
CAD vol.7,p.953.; B. Shiva Rao, The framing of India‘s Constitution: A Study , vol.v,p.311(The Indian
Institution of Public
Administration, New Delhi,1968)
11
15 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
12
(2007) 3S.C.C. 124

10
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

assuming that ejection of individuals is amenable to legal audit. When other constitutional
commitments are asserted to have been encroached, the Court concludes that legal examination
of administrative action cannot be completed. To avoid infringement of established liabilities, the
court should use its ward in a variety of situations. That is the primary reason it is referred to as
the Constitution's Savior. In Independent India, the rise of the legal executive can be divided into
two phases. The court was designated a technocratic position with little survey authority during
the Nehruvian period. During this time, the legal executive served the governing body admirably,
and the council had the power to shape it according to its desires and preferences. This stage was
known as Positivist court because the court only understood the law based on the expressions of
the resolution "What the law is," without taking into account any other criteria. In A.K. Gopalan
v. Madras Territory13, the Court acted unequivocally as a positivist court. Because of numerous
gaps between the public authority and individuals, the Indian Supreme Court has evolved from a
positivist court to a functioning court over the last fifty years. This is portrayed as certain action,
but regrettable activism refers to how the court has used this position to its advantage in specific
cases. Judicial activism should remain within its bounds. The organization's manageability, the
legal contribution's authenticity, and the court's resources14 define these boundaries. Judicial
activism is fundamentally political in nature, as it necessitates the court altering existing power
structures. By judicial activism rather than regulative activism, the protected court becomes an
impressive power focus of a vote-based system, clearly breaking the idea of separation of
powers.

JUDICIAL REVIEW IN A TECHNOCRATIC MODE

Parliament may use established amendment to suffocate the Supreme Court in the event of a
significant assemblage of activities. As a result, the court was forced to adopt the technocratic
model, which states that if a statute exceeds authoritative authority, judges should declare it
unconstitutional. The legislative body's activity to maintain control over the judiciary was
circumlocutory. The Nehru organization gained a stronger foothold in each chamber of
parliament. As a result, by obtaining the extraordinary majority required under Article 368,

13
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27
14
Stephen Holmes, ‗Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy‘ in Douglas Greenberg et. al. (eds.),
Constitutionalism and Democracy: Transitions in the Contemporary World (Oxford University Press, 1993) at p.
195-240

11
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

parliament can significantly alter the constitution. In Gopalan's case, the court took an extremely
restrictive approach to individual liberty. Human freedom was defined as the polar opposite of
actual constraint or authority. Individual liberty was defined as not being subject to any genuine
constraint or urge without the permission of the authorities, rather than simply being free to
travel anywhere on Indian land. The majority of the appointed authorities ruled that the prisoners
could not guarantee procedural reasonableness as a basic right because Article 19(1)(d) of the
Constitution did not link with the right to individual freedom expressed in Art.21. As a result,
because the articles are essentially unconnected, they cannot be read together. Because of
A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, the judges were apathetic. J. Chandrachud wrote, "Many
insights highlighted the concern that, during a crisis, the leader may lash, strip, and starve the
detune, and, if our assessment is correct, even kill him." Such transgressions have not tarnished
Free India's reputation, and I have a precious stone dazzling, gem-hard belief that such atrocities
will never occur."15 Despite the support of the Indian judiciary, multiple atrocities16 were
committed while the country was in turmoil. Despite the fact that the Indian court was generally
regarded as fair and principled, landowners, rulers, political pioneers, and the majority of
government employees restricted its legislation. The political opposition also spoke out against
the court's ruling. The average person thought of it as a luxury that only the wealthy could afford.
These opinions determined that the Court is, on the whole, a poor institution. According to
Jefferson, the court was the most susceptible organ of public power since it had no control over
the blade or the satchel.

BRIEF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:

"Judicial activism" is defined in a variety of ways by Scholastics. Merriam-Dictionary "The

training in the legal executive of defending or expanding individual freedoms by decisions that
diverge from established point of reference or are autonomous of or contradictory to explicit
established or regulative aim," according to Webster's Dictionary of Law.17 Judicial activism is
defined as "a way of thinking about legal decision-making in which judges allow their own
perspectives about open strategy, among other variables, to direct their choices, normally with

15
AIR 1976 SC 1207,1349.
16
In kaka yam police camp, an engineering student was murdered by police torture; Seervai,Emergency,Future
Safeguards,supra n.7,p.1.
17
Webster‘s 20th Century Dictionary

12
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

the idea that followers of this way of thinking will frequently track down constitutional
infringement and dismiss point of reference," according to Black's Law Dictionary.18

These days, "judicial activism" is a contentious topic. Several eyewitnesses have stated that the
events referred to as dynamic choices should not be considered judicial activism. They claim that
since independence, the Indian legal executive has never been a "dissident." In reality, the Indian
court has done nothing extraordinary in issuing these ostensibly dynamic judgments, which have
been dubbed "judicial activism" by many. In reality, the legal executive made decisions based on
the authority granted to it by the Constitution. Any Court is required by law to make decisions in
accordance with the law. The court's constitutional strength comes from its unique judicial
review jurisdiction, which it uses to check and limit the power of the other two branches of
government. It also won in establishing its constitutional incomparability in terms of developing
lawful translations with selective attention. As a result, the court is gaining power in Indian
governmental matters as freedom becomes apparent. In reality, the Indian court's clear shift in
position over time has had significant political ramifications across the administration framework
and the prospect of civil rights. These distinct legal executive tendencies can be roughly
identified from the 1980s to the present. In terms of the interaction between developing extremist
impulses and legal confidence, the 1980s present a challenge. In India, the most basic
commitment of judicial activism has been to provide a safety valve in a vote-based democracy
and the notion that justice is not beyond reach. Judicial activism is a delicate subject that should
be handled with caution.

JUDGES, ACADEMICIANS, AND AUTHORS ALL HAVE DIFFERENT

PERSPECTIVES

The Indian Constitution is praised for allowing anyone, at any time, to file a case for review with
the country's most prestigious court. The adjudicators have a responsibility to protect and
execute equity for all people, not just those who live in the city or in five-star hotels. Judicial
activism is defined as a commitment in legal interactions and legal professions to a wide range of
difficult issues that consider the development of new legitimate ways of thinking.

18
Ed. By Garner A. Bryan, Black‘s Law Dictionary (West Group Publication, 7th ed., 2002)

13
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

1) According to Justice Satyabrata Sinha19, "Judicial activism has become fundamental

because of changes in virtues, changes in the world of politics, and more prominent action in the
field of public interest cases." Most experts believe that Chief Justice Marshall's decision in
Marbury v Madison gave judicial activism its impetus, according to the surviving writing on the
subject in India.20 Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the then-US Federal Government appointed
Marbury to be an adjudicator. The warrant of arrangement could not be delivered to Marbury
despite being marked. The government, on the other hand, was on the move. A writ of
mandamus was requested by Marbury. Marshall had been Chief Justice before, having been
appointed by the previous president. Justice Marshall, the boss, was in a pickle. Marshall might
have stepped down as Chief Justice if Marbury's appointment had been upheld. He used
remarkably astute reasoning when forced to make a decision. He came to the conclusion that
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court
the power to issue writs of mandamus in contravention of the Constitution. He argued that the
Constitution is the country's central and most stringent regulation, and that it is up to the courts
to determine what the law is. He confirmed that the Constitution's singular expressiveness
supported the presumption of unrivaled quality. A regulation that is unconstitutional is one that
violates the Constitution. He also decided that if a regulation enacted by Congress and the
Constitution's provisions conflicted, it was the court's responsibility to uphold the Constitution
before rejecting the specific regulation enacted by Congress.

As a result, the concepts of legal audit and judicial activism were born from a single decision.
Despite the fact that the ideas fundamentally influence the working of legal frameworks in all
customary law and English-speaking nations, such as India, the reality remains that the decision
in Marbury versus Madison was handed down by a Chief Justice who faced the possibility of
losing his job if he did not uphold Marbury's arrangement, and thus upheld Marbury's
arrangement. He didn't want to go up against the foundation because he needed to keep his own
status. The decision's main goal was to solve a problem and come to an agreement with the
foundations. On the other hand, a close examination of the decision reveals that the proportion
was devised with a convoluted rationale and the reasonable goal of excusing the activity at the

19
Justice SatyabrataSinha, Judge, High Court, Calcutta, ―Judicial Activism: Its Evolution and Growth,‖ The
Administrator, Vol. XLII April – June 1997 pp. 51-56.
20
United States Supreme Court in the year 1803 – 1804

14
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

top of the priority list. As a result, the decision will have to be written in legalese. Regardless of
the undeniable brilliance of the rationale and the coincidental birth of two significant new
precepts of incomparability of the constitution and authority of legal audit, whether or not equity
was expected to be done for the situation couldn't be answered in the confirmed, whether or not
equity was expected to be done for the situation couldn't be answered in the confirmed,
regardless of the undeniable brilliance of the rationale and the coincidental birth of two
significant new precepts of in These two concepts have unquestionably served as the foundation
of the Indian general set of laws, as well as those dating back hundreds of years. In any case, the
introduction of judicial activism in Marbury versus Madison could be credited to the Chief
Justice himself, who might have been antagonistically impacted in any case with no one to assist
him in saving his position, without the ornamental language and splendid but tangled rationale,
as well as the ensuing greatness offered to the episodic judgment. On the surface, the Chief
Justice was expected to issue a decision that appeared to be very favorable. He did, in fact, have
the option of avoiding the important and valid issue. The clarification appears to be honorable
and is based on some new information. The main concern, however, is that the decision was
made solely for the purpose of preserving the Chief Justice's own position. This must always be
kept in mind before examining the judgment on any legal basis.

It's also clear that judicial activism like Marbury v. Madison necessitates some legal ingenuity to
properly balance competing interests. Unadulterated activism, it has been claimed, can unleash
destructive forces. A mix of creativity and judicial activism could produce better results. As a
result, judicial activism refers to the official or chief understanding of established arrangements
and a subject matter of regulation in order to protect the constitution as incomparable and keep
courts at the constitution's side. The central premise of judicial activism is to decipher the US
Constitution in a way that is helpful, coherent, and imaginative. Any protected change should be
consistent with and comparable to the first constitution's central goals. It was never expected that
such a change or regulation would be allowed to affect the constitution itself. "Judicial activism,
then, entails submitting assets to the legal cycle, which suggests legal profession on various
testing subjects21, thereby empowering the rise of new legitimate ways of thinking," Justice
Satyabrata Sinha concludes. The law has advanced dramatically in various regions over the last

21
United States Supreme Court in the year 1803 – 1804

15
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

twenty years, according to the Supreme Court of India and High Courts. According to Justice
Mr. Satyabrata Sinha, "changes in moral principles, changes in politics, and developments in the
field of public interest litigation have necessitated judicial activism in specific areas." A critical
part of the changing climate, according to Satyabrata Sinha, is that the concept of regular equity
has also changed as a result of a new Supreme Court decision. Despite the fact that the
Constitutional 42 Amendment Act removed specific words from Clause (2) Article 311 of the
Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court held in Union of India v. Md. Ramzan Khan22 and
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar23 that providing a copy of the
investigation report to allow a delinquent official to make a representation is a piece of ordinary
equity.

2) In the words of Justice M.N. Rao:24

"A typical analysis of judicial activism is that, in order to decipher established and official
arrangements, the legal executive occasionally revises them without explicitly stating so, and a
portion of the adjudicators' private beliefs transform into lawful standards and constitutional
qualities." Another feature of this study is that it focuses on judicial activism. The ability
partition standard has been obliterated, and the court is dismantling the regulatory and chief
branches' positions by attacking specific areas. Pundits openly declare that the constitution
provides for balanced governance in order to prevent the convergence of authority by any branch
of government that is not explicitly vested in the Constitution." "As a result, it is now widely
recognized, should be avoided in legal interaction," Mr. M.N. Rao said. On the other hand, this is
a difficult task. Judges' private thoughts frequently take the form of legitimate thoughts." "The
court can constantly define boundaries at new points by deftly turning to inventive interpretative
processes," the court expresses, "without relying on an inclination for a specific worth decision,
and thus welcoming examination of entering the unavoidably restricted area of judicial
activism." Mr. M. N. Rao has also stated that the legal executive's autonomy is considered a
fundamental component of the Constitution, and that when an individual who was not qualified
to be a High Court judge was about to be confirmed, the Supreme Court intervened and
permanently barred him from accepting the position, and the Union of India and other

22
AIR 1991 471
23
1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 391
24
www.legal.com

16
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

established functionaries would not manage the promise despite the warrant of arrangement
given by the apex court. The court also stated that, in general, the legal executive should not
interfere with appointments to the High Court Benches, but that such activity could be expected
in serious cases. The Chief Justice of India sent the Supreme Court a notice in which he
recommended an ineligible person for the position of High Court Judge, claiming that he is a
legal authority and thus qualified for the arrangement.

3) P.M. Bakshi makes the following claim:25

"As an administrative concept, judicial activism does not exist." It alludes to the court's ability to
advance equity in a broad sense, demonstrating its dynamic commitment to doing so. What
constitutes "dynamic" could be a point of contention or, at the very least, the presentation of
opposing viewpoints with shifted emphasis." "When it provides positive assistance, the court acts
in some ways as a dissident." In this way, activism is not a revolutionary concept. Rather than
awarding a substitute remedy, such as damages, the court would help the parties understand their
reasonable authoritative assumptions... On the other hand, the modern concept of activism takes
a different path. The legal scholar looks at public regulation rather than private regulation when
evaluating judicial activism in the current situation. His primary goal is not individual equity. His
job is to look into how the court, with its dynamic support, can provide equity to an individual, a
group, or society as a whole, particularly when it comes to public institutions." "Should the court
mediate in every case of (avowed) injustice, treacherous activity, or inaction by another
organization, or is strict adherence to legitimate standards preferable?" "If such an answer isn't
predictable in law, the conventional argument would be that a court is intended to carry out the
law as given over by the competent power, rather than acting in accordance with what it
considers to be the best arrangement..." Then there's the issue of understanding sculpture.
Sculpture translation, regardless of the availability of significant settlements on the subject,
leaves a lot of room for the individual adjudicator. Finally, there are areas of law where neither
resolution regulation nor case regulation apply. To begin with, the adjudicator has almost
complete freedom in the air. However, this is only the beginning, because each bird that flies

25
P.M. Bakshi, ―JusicialActicism‖ Some Reflections, The Administrator, Vol. XLII, April – June
1997 pp. 5.

17
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

overhead returns to its perch, and the adjudicator, despite his advantage, should proceed with
caution..."

"Typically, judicial activism is depicted as an appointed authority pursuing a risky strategy." The
appointed authority's preference for one course of action over another is not unusual. Obviously,
if the court engages in such activism in a specific area of law on a sufficient number of
occasions, such activism becomes customary in that area. Teacher Baxi notes in his essay on
judicial activism that the term activism has been used more specifically, with judges being
assessed as activists by various groups based on their preferences, philosophies, and values, and
they are respected or criticized based on whether judicial activism is seen as harmful or
beneficial to the protection and advancement of those interests, belief systems, and values.

4) Professor A. Lakshminath26 explains that "the expressions judicial activism and legal
limitation have significantly different undertones depending on who applies them." They could
start by speculating on how the court makes its decisions. If the Court's investigations progress
gradually from one case to the next, settling disputes on minor details rather than major issues,
and relying on state decisions and points of reference, it is seen as practicing legal limitation.
However, the Court is said to be engaging in judicial activism if it enters unusual territory by
providing the broadest possible choice in a particular case, regardless of whether the cases could
be settled on smaller grounds... " Another set of ramifications for the terms "judicial activism"
and "legal restriction" is the relationship between the court and the various branches of
government. When the Supreme Court consistently refuses to hear anything that appears to be a
political point, or when it consistently concedes to other branches of government, stating that a
specific candidate has not exhausted his cures or should go to the assembly for relief, this is
referred to as legal limitation. Others will label this judicial activism if the Court becomes the
authoritative cycle's dominant administrator and its decisions declare it to be reasonable. ..

"Judges are under enormous pressure to adapt the law to changing cultural requirements and
aspirations, as well as to serve the purpose of civil rights." "Judicial activism is the bedrock of
this framework."

26
Professor A. Lakshminath, Dr. B.R. AmbedkarCollehe of Law, Andhra University,
Vishakhapattanan, ―Judicial activism and judicial restraint,‖

18
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

SELF-LEGITIMIZATION THROUGH JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

Neither in Gopalan case nor in Shivkant Shukla's nonconformists had shown no sympathy. The
court's legitimate positivism aided in the suffocation and suffocation of nonconformist freedoms
by political foundations. Furthermore, the courts recognized that strong public support would
enable them to stand up to the domineering chief's narrow-mindedness. Articles 14 and 21 are
deciphered in great detail, yielding primary legal interaction standards aimed at increasing
receptivity and cooperation. It was an attempt to repair the court's reputation, which had suffered
as a result of a couple of critical decisions.27 Judge Frank Easterbrook started with a safe
assumption: everyone despises judicial activism, a term with no clear definition. In any case, this
suggestion should be accepted on a trial basis. The vast majority of people consider judicial
activism to be dangerous. Some academics, however, argue that it isn't always a bad thing in
certain situations. The issue is that discussing judicial activism without providing definitions,
rules, and qualifiers is currently difficult.28 In India's legal lexicon, judicial activism has become
a term. Legal activism is also known by other terms such as legal innovation, legal
craftsmanship, legal regulation making, inventive sharing of feelings, blowing up the law,
politically motivated justice, and others. Regardless, the court has recently been chastised for
interfering in domestic affairs. The legal executive's growing proclivity to mediate in the spaces
of various foundations, such as lawmaking bodies and the leader, is the subject of this study. The
legal audit process is rife with judicial activism. One's own vision of social change determines
whether or not an activity is positive or negative. Judicial activism is a natural byproduct of legal
review29, not an exception.

Indeed, the Constitution's framers appear to have anticipated the legal executive's role in the
advancement of regulation. The adjudicators have fought for and protected the rights of
individuals. J. Hidayatullah stated in a diametrically opposed opinion based on Sajjan Singh v.
Province of Rajasthan that fundamental rights should not be a game played by the majority. The
court ruled by a vote of six to five in Golaknath v. Province of Punjab that parliament lacks the

27
Upendra Baxi, ―Taking Suffering Seriously :Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India‘ in
Dhavan,Sudarshan and
Salman Khursid (ed.),The Judicial Power,pp.289,294 (Tripathi, Sweet-Maxwell,1985)
28
D. Kmiec, The Origin and Current Meaning of ―Judicial Activism‖, 92 CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW1441,
1441-1477 (2004).
29
S. P. Sathe, ― Judicial activism in India‖ p. 6, Oxford University Press

19
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

authority to make changes that would diminish or eliminate any of the constitution's essential
rights. It claimed that a constitution is a grundnorm (a legally binding standard) that does not
need to be approved. Sui juris was used to determine its legality.30 The Twenty-fourth
Amendment was thus put to the test in court, along with the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which
further restricted the right to property, and the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which abolished privy
satchels. The question arose as to how the parliament could achieve this through established
change if it lacked the power to amend the constitution to limit fundamental rights. The case was
heard by a court of thirteen adjudicators, who overturned the golaknath choice by a vote of seven
to six, declaring that parliament's ward was unlimited. The constitutionality of the fundamental
system of the constitution limited the constituent power of the parliament under Article 368.
Parliament's constituent authority was unrestricted as long as it did not disregard the
constitution's core structure31, and a constitutional amendment could not obliterate or change
these fundamental components to the point of indistinguishability. In another case32, the council
upheld art.323-A(2), which invalidated the high court's jurisdiction (d). The Supreme Court
determined that the High Court's interpretation of Article 226 of the Constitution was crucial to
the constitution's fundamental structure. The right to freely express oneself through discourse
and articulation within the home was declared a fundamental tenet of the constitution in a
different case33. The convention's overuse and underuse both have the potential to delegitimize it.
A court should never appear to be a super-administrator, but it should also avoid undermining the
central construction precept because of its limitations. As a result, it appears that the point of
view of the key construction hypothesis could be expanded to include both administrative and
chief exercises. The court should act as a blue pencil of constituent power activity to protect the
constitution's most vulnerable goals. It should also consider appropriate established revisions
while safeguarding the outlined goals at the heart of constitutionalism.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Public Interest Litigation is an essential component of any study of judicial activism in India. It's
a type of constitutional arbitration aimed at ensuring protected equity and bolstering the Welfare

30
P.K Tripathy, ‗Golaknath: A Critique‘ In some Insights in to Fundamental rights, p.1(Tripathi,1972)
31
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
32
L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 261.
33
P.V Narsimha Rao v. State, (1998) 4 SCC 626.

20
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

State concept.34 A legitimate activity carried out in an official courtroom to implement a public
interest or general interest in which people in general or a class of people in the local area pay a
monetary or other premium that affects their legal rights or obligations is referred to as "public
interest litigation."35 The origins and history of Public Interest Litigation in India can be traced
back to the judiciary's recognition of constitutional obligations to the country's most
marginalized and oppressed citizens. Prior to the 1980s, locus standi only applied to the
aggrieved party; everyone else who wasn't directly affected lacked locus standi. As a result of
widespread lack of education, there was no connection between fundamental rights and state
regulations. According to S.P. Gupta v. Association of India, "any individual from people in
general or social activity bunch acting true blue" can seek redress in the courts' Writ Jurisdiction
for infringement of a lawful or protected right of people who are unable to approach the Court
due to social, monetary, or other compulsions. Through letters sent to sitting judges, the Court
took suo moto notice of a number of cases, including abuse of detainees, fortified specialists, and
mental emergency clinic inmates. The practice of starting procedures based on letters has been
refined and is now referred to as 'epistolary locale.' In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Association of
India36, the Supreme Court called attention to the widespread act of reinauthorized work that
continues despite the protected preclusion. The Shriram Food and Fertilizer case37, in which the
Court ordered managers to stop producing hazardous synthetic compounds and gases that
endangered representatives' lives and well-being, was one of the previous intercessions. Indian
courts have also come to accept the procedure of allowing monetary compensation for protected
wrongs such as illegitimate imprisonment, custodial torment, and extra-legal executions by state
specialists through the vehicle of PIL.38

34
25ROIL, Public Interest Litigation, §1.1, 5 (Universal Law Publishing co. pvt. Ltd., 2011).
35
Stephen Holmes, ‗Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy‘ in Douglas Greenberg et. al. (eds.),
Constitutionalism and Democracy: Transitions in the Contemporary World (Oxford University Press, 1993) at p.
195-240
36
(1984) 3 SCC 161
37
(1986) 2 SCC 176
38
See observations justifying the payment of compensation for human rights violations by state agencies in the
following decisions: Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1985) 4 SCC 677; Nilabati Behera v. State of
Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746; D.K. Basu v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 416; Also see: Lutz Oette, ‗India‘s
International obligations towards victims of human rights violations: Implementation in domestic law and practice‘
in C. Raj Kumar & K. Chockalingam (eds.)

21
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

In the circle of orientation equity, the decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan39 was a
significant step forward.

In that case, the appeal stemmed from an assault on a grassroots social specialist. The Court
referred to the language of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) in that decision and established standards for creating redressal
cycles to address lewd behavior of ladies at work. Despite the fact that the decision was
unequivocally condemned for infringing on regulatory authority, the legislative body is still
unable to pass any legislation on the subject. It is critical to remember that genuine social
change, like any long-term change, necessitates a long-term commitment. Prosecution is a
critical step toward fundamental change, regardless of whether a specific request receives
insufficient assistance or is completed late. The procedures initiated by renowned preservationist
M.C. Mehta have resulted in many important decisions on ecological insurance. His petitions
have resulted in orders imposing severe responsibility for an oleum gas leak from a processing
plant in New Delhi, bearings to thoroughly investigate contamination in and around the Ganges
river, the relocation of dangerous enterprises from Delhi's outskirts, mandates to state specialists
to control contamination around the Taj Mahal, and numerous afforestation projects. As a result
of an appeal that raised the issue of serious vehicle air pollution in Delhi, a significant decision
was reached. The Court was presented with solid, measurable evidence of higher levels of
hazardous poisons as a result of business vehicles using diesel as a fuel. In this case, the Supreme
Court took a firm stance, requesting that government-run transportation use compressed natural
gas (CNG), an environmentally friendly fuel. PIL could also allow the court to act as a catalyst
for majority rule powers to be used to force unwilling legislatures to act. Rather than attempting
to replace government, with PIL decisions viewed as a strategy for a different leveled shift of
authority, the court's solidarity may lie in collaborating with a vote-based discussion about
interest bartering. The court should try not to be caught up in prevailing political interests and,
instead, act as a facilitator by attempting to structure the legal interaction in such a way that it is
adaptable and dynamic enough to proceed with the discussion (between the adjudicators, the
public authority, and the general public) about the best method for ensuring protected freedoms.
39
(1997) 6 SCC 241; See D.K. Srivastava, ‗Sexual harassment and violence against women in India: Constitutional
and legal perspectives‘ in C. Raj Kumar & K. Chockalingam (eds.), Human rights, Justice and Constitutional
empowerment (OUP,
2007)at p. 486-512

22
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

As a result, the court can empower the political interaction in collaboration with other state
organizations, to create structures that remain open to a variety of issues, and to oversee
execution in such a way that results are produced through a participative ethic that ensures those
generally impacted by the choice play a role in shaping and observing it.

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND POWER SEPARATION

The court has always played an important role in the organization of equity as one of the pillars
of a majority-rules government. The Constitution clearly lays out the Line of Control for both the
Legislature and the Judiciary to maintain their autonomy in their respective capacities, subject to
a number of provisos. Articles 121 and 211 forbid the council from discussing any adjudicator's
direction in carrying out his responsibilities, and Articles 122 and 212 forbid the courts from
passing judgment on the assembly's inner workings. Articles 105 (2) and 194(2) guarantee
parliamentarians' freedom to speak and vote in the face of legal impediment. The court's ability
to act as a check on the other two branches of government is clearly stated in the Constitution's
various Articles. The guideline is widely regarded as an important part of the Indian
Constitution.40 In I. R. Coelho v. Territory of Tamil Nadu41, the court emphasized the importance
of the constitution's detachment of abilities and governing rules. The principle of ability
detachment was recognized as crucial to the preservation of freedom and the avoidance of
oppression. Power separation was regarded as a critical component of the Indian constitution.
The court has been granted this authority in order to protect three types of minorities: (1) racial
minorities42, (2) socially stigmatized individuals43, and (3) political dissenters44. As a result, legal
audit is primarily used to protect disfavored or minority rights.

REASONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Aside from its constitutional foundation and authenticity, the rationale for legal review is the
transformation of development and portability to meet the changing needs of a general public,
the assembly's consistent disappointment, and the requirement to carry equity to the

40
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, (I975) Supp. S.C.C. 1
41
AIR 2007 SC 861
42
Brown v. Board of Education;347 US 483 (1954):98 L. Ed. 873.
43
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494
44
Liversidge v.Anderson, (1942) AC 206

23
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

disadvantaged citizens45. In terms of ensuring regulatory equity quality, non-legal regulatory

remedies such as ombudsmen, tests, and councils are more reasonable. Parliamentary equity is
insufficient and time-consuming, as the new bicentennial has revealed. The courts were expected
to involve dead ground that the governing body could not dismiss in order to avoid a vacuum in
which residents would be left without protection against abuses of leader power.46 According to
customary regulation legal advisors, legal review is legal advancement that applies the standards
of a higher level of regulation prudently preceding the legislature's order.47 Legal progress,
according to some legal experts, is a pleasant endeavor that complements, rather than contradicts,
regulatory goals.48

LODHA COMMITTEE-IS IT JUDICIAL OVER-REACH?

Cricket was annihilated. The board's rehashed corruptions, scandals, red tapes, and abuse of
power drove it to lose its soul. In January 2015, the Supreme Court appointed "The Lodha
council" to put an end to the IPL Scandals, following the Mudgal board's report. Before delving
into the panel's defensibility, it is critical to define BCCI. The Board of Control for Cricket in
India (BCCI) is the country's official cricket governing body (BCCI) (BCCI). In December 1928,
the board was formed as a general public organization and registered under the Tamil Nadu
Societies Registration Act. It is a federation of state cricket associations, with representatives
chosen by the state associations, who then select BCCI chiefs. It organizes public competitions
and chooses a public group to represent the country at international levels. The directorate is not
reliant on the government for funding. Due to the love for the game, it continues to have a large
fan base in India, which serves as a cash hotspot for the board. It has the support of several
organizations, including Nike, the uniform authority, Air Sahara, and others is a significant
number. The Lodha council made significant changes in rebuilding the body and reestablishing
the game's substance due to various flaws. It asked for the creation of an incomparable chamber

45
Supra, 44, at p.9.
46
Mark Elliott er al, Beatson, [Mathews and E11iort‘s A(1mr'nirrrafi1'e Law— Text and Materials, Oxford
University Press, London (3'd ed.), p.8.
47
Jeffrey Jowell, ―Of vires and vaccums : The Constitutional Context of Judicial Review‖ In Mark Elliot, The
Constitutional
foundation of judicial review , Hart Publishing, Oxford (2001),p.327
48
See Mark Elliott, ―Legislative Intention Versus Judicial Creativity‗? Administrative Law as a Cooperative
Endeavour", in Mark Elliott, The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review, Hart Publishing, Oxford, (2001), p.
341.

24
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

of nine members to replace the current BCCI working council. These officials are appointed for
three years and can be re-appointed up to three times. They should not be allowed to hold office
for more than one term, and there should be a mandatory cooling-off period in between terms.
For the sake of productivity, it divided administration into two categories: cricketing and non-
cricketing. Non-cricketing executives will be overseen by six expert directors who will report to
a CEO, while players will be in charge of player selection, training, and execution. Government
officials are not permitted to work as office conveyors. The panel also stipulated that each state
have only one association and one vote.

It advocated for the formation of separate governing bodies for the IPL and the BCCI. There
should be a 15-day gap between the IPL season and the public schedule. It successfully
persuaded lawmakers to legalize cricket betting for everyone except cricket players, officials,
and managers. Players and other illegal specialists should report their assets to the BCCI to avoid
gambling. Match-fixing and spot-fixing were declared illegal by the board of trustees. One man
can only serve in one position in the cricket organization. The officials selected would have to
choose between positions in their state associations and positions in the parent body. It prompted
the legislature to reconsider bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act's jurisdiction. To oversee
issues of irreconcilable differences, bad behavior, and debasement, the BCCI should contact a
morals official who is a former High Court judge. Internal issues should be handled by an
ombudsman, who should be a former Supreme Court judge. It focuses on amplifying players'
voices and protecting cricketers' interests by fostering a players' gathering. To focus on female
players, a ladies' cricket board of trustees will be formed. The proposed changes have the
potential to significantly alter the BCCI's activities while also bolstering its public image and
bringing much-needed authenticity to the organization. Former Supreme Court Judge J. Katju,
for example, has a history of blatant legal overreach. In that it begins where sensible activism
ends, Legal Overreach is inextricably linked to its parent concept of Judicial Activism.
According to Justice Verma, if the court begins taking care of business that should not be done
by him, it not only presents an issue of lack of aptitude, but it also leaves the bothered party with
no place to voice his objections. It is considered impropriety when courts take control of
decisions made by other organizations or subject matter experts; when they decide a legal issue
with a legal basis, it is referred to as genuine judicial activism and is justified. He goes on to say

25
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

that Judicial Activism is justified by a thorough legal analysis. No arbitrary or legally sanctioned
oppression is acceptable. These are the most important factors to consider when determining the
legitimacy and authenticity of legal intervention.

LODHA PANEL'S DEFENSE

Outrageous positivists believe that the overall set of laws is flawless. According to Austin's
scientific school, which is still heavily imbued in England, Parliament, not judges, decides the
law. Regardless, it was a work of fiction, as evidenced by various English court decisions.
Regardless of the various reactions to the separation of powers concept and the encroachment on
official freedoms. The specialist believes that legal control is critical in the modern era for two
reasons: (1) Due to the unique individuality of today's culture, the assembly will be unable to
adequately anticipate and respond to all future events. As a result, judges should work to correct
legal flaws. (2) The Legislature may be hesitant or unprepared to draft a cutting-edge rule that is
painfully necessary, and the courts may occasionally fill this role. Roscoe Pound, America's most
visible figure in humanistic legislation, proposed a "instrumentalist" approach that would give
the appointed authority more leeway. He contends that "equity without regulation" provides
benefits such as a more noticeable reaction to social elements. It is capable of resolving a key
inconsistency that he formulates as follows: "Regulation should be consistent, but it cannot
remain so." Pound claims that he will be able to reconcile the law with the dynamism of public
activity if he does so. In his book "Development of Law," Justice Cardozo of the United States
Supreme Court outlined his "standard of development" for determining the tension between a
stable overall set of laws and social dynamism. Changes in public activity necessitate new
responses to other social interests' tensions, as well as new security incitement systems. As a
result, the general set of laws should be adaptable and effective. It should be consistently evolved
and refreshed to keep up with the advancements in the real world to which it is to be a part. We
should think about the two standards of progress and consistency when looking for benchmarks.
"It used to be maintained that judges make regulation," the Indian Supreme Court stated in
Sarojini Ramaswami v. Association of India. Today, there is no doubt that dominant court
decisions include a significant portion of the law that governs residents' lives and manages the
State's activity. This clearly shows that the Judiciary is also important in the creation of
regulations.

26
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

Because legal commitment is essential in legal auditing, it is simply a continuation of the

activism that was previously required. The Supreme Court established the Lodha Panel because,
in the absence of a predetermined regulation overseeing the BCCI, erratic decisions were
frequently made, resulting in abuse of authority, and they were not accountable to anyone. As
previously stated, regulatory inadequacy to consider, inability to administer, or refusal to
regulate due to cultural constraints. The judiciary then intervenes to exercise this power in order
to safeguard society's inclinations. Because legal association is so important in legal audit, this is
just a continuation of the activism that was needed at this point to reestablish the picture of the
game at stake.

CONCLUSION

Legal review was developed because the legal executive protects the constitution,
constitutionalism, and law and order; it functions as a safety valve in the midst of emergency
delivered by contending social interests, mitigating cultural strain, and avoiding metro clashes.
The legal executive is responsible for ensuring that the agreements it makes are in the public
interest and benefit the public. Only when there is an unmistakable casus omissus, such as a gap
in the rule that the court can fill, in the absence of a law, or disappointment with the assembly's
ability to implement, after the order of a regulation, there remains a gap where the Supreme
Court can give directions, can legal review be worked out. Positive Activism is demonstrated by
the use of this power under the aforementioned conditions. These actions contribute to the
resolution of any issues that previously existed between society and the law. It was agreed that
the Judiciary could not be tested for these exercises due to legal impropriety. Despite this, there
have been instances of negative judicial activism in which the Supreme Court dismisses an
authoritative or established decision in favor of its own. In Second Judge's Case, the court
essentially ignored the requirements of Article 124 for selecting Supreme Court Judges, instead
imposing its own component, such as the collegiums framework. Rather than accusing the court
of overburdening itself with social government assistance tasks, a development should emerge to
counteract this negative trend.

27
 JAGANNATH UNIVERSITY

BIBLOGRAPHY

List of Important Books and Articles referred-

1. K. Bag, Judicial Activism vis-à-vis Public administration, The Administrator, Vol. XLII,
April-June 1997, p. 167.
2. Judicial activism: Its impact on Public administration, The Administrator, Vol. XLII (2),
April-June 1997, p. 179. 4.
3. P.M. Bakshi, Judicial activism. Some reflections, The Administrator, Vol. XLII (2), April-
June1997, p.5. 5.
4. K. L. Bhatia, Judicial review and Judicial activism: A comparative study of India and
Germany from an Indian perspective, Deep and Deep Publishers, New Delhi, 1997, p.116.
5. Fali S. Nariman, Judges vs. Judges, The Tribune, December 1 7, 2007.
6. G.R. Bhatacharjee, Judicial Activism. It‘s Message for Administrators, The Administrator, and
Vol.42 (2), April-June 1997, p.39.

28