This document discusses judicial activism in India. It defines judicial activism as the practice of judges departing from precedent or legislative intent to protect or expand individual rights. The origin of judicial activism in India began in 1893 with a dissenting opinion. It was further recognized under the Government of India Act of 1935. Examples given of judicial activism establishing positive law in India include the Vishakha case of 1997 which interpreted international conventions to prevent sexual harassment, and the Navtej Singh Johar case of 2018 which recognized rights of the LGBTQ community. The document argues that judicial activism helps enforce fundamental rights and uphold the basic spirit of democracy in India.
This document discusses judicial activism in India. It defines judicial activism as the practice of judges departing from precedent or legislative intent to protect or expand individual rights. The origin of judicial activism in India began in 1893 with a dissenting opinion. It was further recognized under the Government of India Act of 1935. Examples given of judicial activism establishing positive law in India include the Vishakha case of 1997 which interpreted international conventions to prevent sexual harassment, and the Navtej Singh Johar case of 2018 which recognized rights of the LGBTQ community. The document argues that judicial activism helps enforce fundamental rights and uphold the basic spirit of democracy in India.
This document discusses judicial activism in India. It defines judicial activism as the practice of judges departing from precedent or legislative intent to protect or expand individual rights. The origin of judicial activism in India began in 1893 with a dissenting opinion. It was further recognized under the Government of India Act of 1935. Examples given of judicial activism establishing positive law in India include the Vishakha case of 1997 which interpreted international conventions to prevent sexual harassment, and the Navtej Singh Johar case of 2018 which recognized rights of the LGBTQ community. The document argues that judicial activism helps enforce fundamental rights and uphold the basic spirit of democracy in India.
INDIA Name- Sanskriti Dixit Roll No.-19071 Group- 14 INTRODUCTION Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law: judicial activism as "the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decision that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent Upendra Baxi: activism of the judiciary pertains to the political role played by it, like the other two political branches. The justification for the judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in aid which forced the judiciary to respond and to make political or policy-making judgments Origin and development of Judicial activism in India The Judicial Activism in India can be witnessed with reference to the review power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution particularly in Public Interest Litigation. In 1893, dissenting opinion of Justice Mahmood of Allahabad High Court in a case had marked the beginning of judicial activism in India. Judiciary as an independent and separate organ of the government was recognized under the Government of India Act, 1935 JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AS A MEANS TO POSITIVE LAW Vishakha and others v State of Rajasthan (1997) : The court decided that the consideration of "International Conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein.“ Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) : Court recognised the rights of LGBTQ community and declared that homosexuality should not be considered an offence and is natural. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND DEMOCRACY The Judiciary can strike down any law that is beyond Parliament’s legislative competence or is violative of the Constitution. Similarly, it can strike down any Executive action, if there is any patent illegality or arbitrariness to it The constitution of India has declared the judiciary as the guardian of fundamental rights. Judiciary has been endowed with the power to enforce the fundamental rights of the citizens under article 13, 32 and 226. Judicial activism ensures that people in a democracy are protected and the basic spirit of democracy is upheld. THANK YOU