Judicial Activism:

1. Definition: Judicial activism refers to court decisions influenced by individual or political

views of a judge rather than strictly adhering to existing laws.
2. Nature: Judges may use personal views to administer decisions, deviating from
precedents and identifying constitutional violations.
3. Purpose: Activism aims to protect citizens' rights and address constitutional violations,
sometimes challenging traditional boundaries.
4. Powers of the State: Legislative power (making laws), executive power (implementing
laws), and judicial power (resolving disputes through law application) exist, requiring
coordination.
5. Judicial Role: Activism transforms the judiciary into a proactive and collaborative entity,
ensuring constitutional responsibilities from the Executive and Legislature.

Judicial Review:

1. Definition: Judicial review involves examining the constitutionality of laws or executive

actions at both Central and State levels.
2. Constitutional Basis: Articles 32 and 226 in the Indian Constitution grant judicial review
powers to the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively.
3. Unamendable Authority: Judicial review is considered a basic attribute of the
Constitution, not subject to amendments that curtail its power.

Historical Development of Judicial Activism:

1. Global Context: The origin of judicial activism involves a clash between progressive
judiciary and traditionalist executive or vice versa, as seen in the United Kingdom and the
United States.
2. Indian Context: Judicial activism in India emerged in the 1960s during Indira Gandhi's
tenure, marked by conflicts over progressive policies like ending Privy Purses and
nationalizing banks.

Working of Judicial Activism in India: The Kesavananda Bharati Case:

1. Overview: Judicial activism involves courts moving from traditional decisiveness to

legislative-like roles, creating new laws and policies.
2. Initial Involvement: In the early decades of independence, the judiciary played a minor
role, but in the 1980s, social action litigation, starting with the "Hussainara Khatoon" case,
gained prominence.
3. Kesavananda Bharati Case: A landmark case where the Supreme Court asserted that
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is subject to inherent limitations,
protecting the Constitution's fundamental structure.

Impacts of Judicial Activism in India: Landmark Cases:

1. Innovative Interpretation: The Supreme Court, through inventive interpretation,

expanded citizens' rights and redefined concepts like personal liberty.
 2. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL, a product of judicial activism, aimed to provide
justice to the oppressed and underprivileged, challenging the traditional locus standi rule.
3. Landmark Cases: Cases like "Hussainara Khatoon," "Sunil Batra," and "Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association" showcase the impact of judicial activism in
safeguarding civil liberties and judicial independence.

Conclusion:

1. Overall Impact: Judicial activism, through inventive interpretation and PILs, has
transformed the legal landscape in India, protecting citizens' rights and maintaining
judicial independence.
2. Ongoing Evolution: The far-reaching perspective of recent Supreme Court judgments
indicates an ongoing reformation of judicial activism, giving it an impassioned face in
India.