What is meant by âJudicial Reviewâ? How is it different from âJudicial Activismâ?

Points to Remember:

Judicial Review: Power of courts to review legislative and executive actions.
Judicial Activism: Judges actively shaping public policy through their decisions.
Key Differences: Scope of intervention, basis for decisions, and impact on separation of powers.

Introduction:

Judicial review and judicial activism are two closely related but distinct concepts within the realm of constitutional law. Judicial review, at its core, is the power of the judiciary to scrutinize laws and government actions for their constitutionality. It ensures that the legislative and executive branches operate within the bounds of the constitution. Judicial activism, on the other hand, describes a judicial philosophy where judges actively use their power to shape public policy and societal norms, often going beyond the strict interpretation of legal texts. While both involve judicial intervention, their motivations, approaches, and consequences differ significantly.

Body:

1. Judicial Review:

Judicial review is a fundamental principle in many democracies with written constitutions. It acts as a check on the power of the legislature and executive, preventing the enactment or enforcement of laws that violate constitutional provisions. The power of judicial review is often explicitly or implicitly granted to the judiciary through the constitution itself. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review in the United States. In India, Article 32 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to enforce fundamental rights, effectively establishing judicial review. Judicial review primarily focuses on the legality of actions, ensuring they conform to existing laws and constitutional provisions. It operates within a framework of established legal principles and precedents.

2. Judicial Activism:

Judicial activism is a more contested concept. It refers to instances where judges actively use their interpretative powers to advance social or political goals, often exceeding the traditional role of interpreting and applying existing laws. Critics argue that judicial activism undermines the democratic process by allowing unelected judges to make policy decisions that should be left to the legislature or executive. They contend that it can lead to inconsistent application of the law and a lack of predictability. Examples of judicial activism might include striking down long-standing laws based on evolving societal values or issuing sweeping injunctions that significantly alter government policy. The debate surrounding judicial activism often centers on the appropriate balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability.

3. Key Differences:

Conclusion:

Judicial review and judicial activism are distinct but intertwined concepts. Judicial review is a crucial element of a functioning democracy, ensuring the rule of law and preventing government overreach. Judicial activism, while potentially beneficial in addressing societal injustices or promoting progress, raises concerns about democratic accountability and the appropriate role of the judiciary. A balanced approach is crucial, where the judiciary exercises its power of review responsibly, upholding constitutional values while remaining mindful of its limitations and the democratic process. Promoting transparency, clear articulation of judicial reasoning, and robust mechanisms for public engagement can help mitigate concerns surrounding judicial activism and ensure that judicial decisions are grounded in legal principles and societal needs, fostering a just and equitable society.

UKPCS Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for UKPCS Prelims and UKPCS Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by UKPCS Notes are as follows:-

For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––