Judicial activism is when courts actively interpret the Constitution or laws to protect rights or correct injustices, sometimes stepping into policy areas. For example, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine to limit Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

Judicial restraint is when courts avoid interfering in decisions made by the legislature or executive, respecting the separation of powers. For example, in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court carefully interpreted the power to dismiss state governments without overstepping.

The concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint are two contrasting approaches adopted by the judiciary while interpreting laws and delivering judgments.

Judicial Activism refers to a proactive role taken by the judiciary in the protection of the rights of citizens and in promoting justice, even if it means stepping into the domain of the legislature or executive. It is often exercised when the other organs of the government fail to perform their duties or there is a legislative vacuum. Judicial activism may involve expansive interpretations of the Constitution and statutes to advance public interest.

Example:
A classic example is Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of specific legislation. This was a clear instance of judicial activism where the Court filled a legislative void by framing enforceable guidelines under Article 32 and Article 141 of the Constitution. These guidelines held the field until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Another landmark instance is M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, a series of public interest litigations (PILs) where the Supreme Court took an active role in protecting the environment by issuing directives that had wide policy implications.

Judicial Restraint, on the other hand, is a philosophy wherein the judiciary avoids encroaching upon the functions of the legislature and executive, and exercises self-discipline in adjudicating matters. It respects the separation of powers and intervenes only when there is a clear constitutional or legal violation.

Example:
In Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), the Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court's verdict that had decriminalized consensual homosexual acts under Section 377 IPC. The Court observed that it was the prerogative of the legislature to amend or repeal a law and chose to exercise judicial restraint. (Though this judgment was later overruled in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018.)

Another example is State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the President’s power under Article 356 and exercised restraint by not interfering in the executive's political decision.

Conclusion:
While judicial activism ensures that justice is not denied due to legislative inaction or executive apathy, judicial restraint safeguards democratic balance and respects the separation of powers. Both doctrines are essential, and the judiciary must wisely decide which approach to adopt based on the facts, legal principles, and constitutional context of each case

Judicial Activism
Definition: Judicial activism occurs when judges proactively interpret the Constitution or laws expansively, often stepping into the domain of the legislature or executive to address perceived injustices, protect rights, or fill gaps in governance. It involves a dynamic and creative approach, prioritizing justice and public interest over strict adherence to legal text or precedent.
Characteristics:
Expansive interpretation of constitutional provisions, especially fundamental rights.
Use of public interest litigation (PIL) to address systemic issues.
Issuing guidelines or directives to fill legislative or executive voids.
Often seen as the judiciary acting as a catalyst for social change or reform.
Examples in Indian Case Law:
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
Context: The case arose from a PIL addressing the absence of laws protecting women from sexual harassment at the workplace, following the gang rape of a social worker.
Judicial Activism: The Supreme Court, invoking Articles 14, 19, and 21, laid down the Vishaka Guidelines to prevent workplace sexual harassment, effectively legislating in the absence of statutory law. The Court relied on international conventions (CEDAW) to expand the scope of fundamental rights.
Significance: This is a classic example of judicial activism, as the Court created binding guidelines, stepping into the legislative domain to address a pressing social issue until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
Context: The petitioner’s passport was impounded without reasons, raising questions about the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Judicial Activism: The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, holding that any procedure depriving liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, not merely “established by law.” This introduced the concept of due process, significantly broadening the protection of fundamental rights.
Significance: The judgment marked a shift toward activism by redefining the judiciary’s role in scrutinizing executive actions and ensuring fairness, influencing subsequent rights-based jurisprudence.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986 onwards):
Context: A series of PILs addressed environmental degradation, including air pollution and river cleaning.
Judicial Activism: The Supreme Court issued directives to close polluting industries, enforce emission standards, and monitor environmental compliance, effectively shaping environmental policy. For instance, it mandated the use of CNG in Delhi’s public transport to combat air pollution.
Significance: The Court’s proactive interventions filled gaps in environmental governance, demonstrating activism by addressing systemic failures in executive action.
Critique of Judicial Activism:
Strengths: Promotes justice in cases of legislative or executive inaction, protects marginalized groups, and advances constitutional values (e.g., equality, environmental protection).
Weaknesses: Risks judicial overreach, undermining separation of powers, and may lead to impractical directives lacking legislative or executive expertise. For instance, critics argue that Vishaka Guidelines, while progressive, bypassed democratic processes.
Judicial Restraint
Definition: Judicial restraint refers to a conservative approach where judges adhere strictly to the text of the Constitution, statutes, and precedents, deferring to the legislature and executive in matters of policy and governance. It emphasizes judicial self-restraint to avoid encroaching on other branches’ functions.
Characteristics:
Strict interpretation of legal provisions and constitutional text.
Deference to legislative intent and executive discretion unless clearly unconstitutional.
Avoidance of issuing broad directives or creating new rights beyond the law’s explicit scope.
Focus on maintaining separation of powers and judicial modesty.
Examples in Indian Case Law:
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952):
Context: The West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, was challenged for creating special courts with expedited procedures, allegedly violating Article 14 (equality).
Judicial Restraint: While the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Act for lacking rational classification, it refrained from broadly interfering with the state’s legislative power to establish special courts. The Court limited its ruling to the specific procedural unfairness, avoiding overreach into policy matters.
Significance: The judgment reflects restraint by focusing narrowly on constitutional compliance without dictating legislative policy on criminal justice administration.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):
Context: The case involved challenges to the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 in several states.
Judicial Restraint: While the Court ruled that the imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review and struck down misuse in some cases, it refrained from invalidating Article 356 entirely or prescribing rigid guidelines for its use. The Court deferred to the executive’s discretion, provided it was not arbitrary or mala fide.
Significance: The judgment balanced judicial review with restraint, respecting the executive’s constitutional powers while ensuring accountability, avoiding overstepping into political questions.
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2008):
Context: The case involved a service dispute where the petitioner sought judicial intervention to direct government policy on employee reinstatement.
Judicial Restraint: The Supreme Court declined to issue directives, stating, “Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government.” It emphasized that courts should not interfere in policy matters unless there is a clear violation of law.
Significance: This case exemplifies restraint, as the Court avoided substituting its judgment for that of the executive, reinforcing separation of powers.
Critique of Judicial Restraint:
Strengths: Respects democratic processes, preserves separation of powers, and prevents judicial overreach into areas better suited for elected representatives.
Weaknesses: May perpetuate injustices in cases of legislative or executive inaction, especially in protecting marginalized groups or addressing urgent societal issues. For instance, excessive restraint could delay reforms in areas like environmental protection or gender justice.
Judicial Activism’s Role: India’s socio-economic challenges, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and legislative delays have often necessitated judicial activism. Cases like Vishaka and M.C. Mehta addressed critical gaps in gender justice and environmental protection, respectively, where the legislature or executive failed to act. The rise of PILs in the 1980s, pioneered in cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), enabled the judiciary to champion marginalized groups, making activism a tool for social justice.
Judicial Restraint’s Importance: Restraint ensures the judiciary does not undermine democratic accountability or overstep its expertise, as seen in Aravali Golf Club. Excessive activism risks judicial overreach, as critics argue in cases like the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015), where the Court struck down a constitutional amendment, asserting judicial primacy in appointments.
Balancing Act: Indian courts often navigate between activism and restraint. For instance, S.R. Bommai reflects a blend: activist in asserting judicial review over Article 356, but restrained in not dismantling the provision entirely. The basic structure doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), discussed earlier, is activist in limiting Parliament’s amending power but restrained in allowing legislative flexibility within constitutional bounds.

the judicial activism are the vishakha guidlines and nirbhaya case of insering object will amount to rape.
and restraint meand court will remain in their limit and interpret the law as in SR. Bommai case.

Judicial Activism
Definition: A philosophy where judges actively interpret and apply the law to reflect contemporary values and address societal needs, even if it means intervening in areas traditionally left to the legislature or executive.
Example from Indian Case Law: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court, in the absence of specific legislation, issued guidelines on sexual harassment in the workplace to be followed by employers until legislation was enacted.
Judicial Restraint
Definition: A philosophy where judges limit their role to interpreting the law as written, without creating new policies or interpreting it in a way that goes beyond the original intent of the framers.
Example from Indian Case Law:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court held that certain matters are political in nature and not subject to judicial review, respecting the separation of powers and avoiding interference in political decisions.

Judicial Activism: Definition:
A philosophy where judges actively interpret and apply the law to reflect contemporary values and address societal needs, even if it means intervening in areas traditionally left to the legislature or executive.
case law: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court, in the absence of specific legislation, issued guidelines on sexual harassment in the workplace to be followed by employers until legislation was enacted.

Judicial Restraint: Definition:
A philosophy where judges limit their role to interpreting the law as written, without creating new policies or interpreting it in a way that goes beyond the original intent of the framers.
case law : S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court held that certain matters are political in nature and not subject to judicial review, respecting the separation of powers and avoiding interference in political decisions.

Judicial Activism:
Judicial activism occurs when courts go beyond the literal interpretation of the law, often to promote justice, equity, and good conscience.
Features:
Use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)-
-Interpretation of Fundamental Rights in an expansive manner
-Filling legislative or administrative voids
Landmark Cases of Judicial Activism:

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's amending power.
Court actively safeguarded constitutional ethos.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Interpreted Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) broadly. Shifted from "procedure established by law" to "just, fair and reasonable procedure".
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
In the absence of legislation on sexual harassment at the workplace, SC laid down guidelines (Vishaka Guidelines).Example of the court creating law, a hallmark of activism.

Judicial Restraint:
Judicial restraint is the doctrine that courts should limit the exercise of their own power, interpreting laws strictly according to the text and deferring to the legislature or executive.

Features:
-Avoids activism or overstepping constitutional boundaries
-Maintains separation of powers
-Encourages legislative supremacy in policymaking

Landmark Cases of Judicial Restraint:
1. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) :The Court refused to examine the President’s satisfaction in dissolving state assemblies
2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Early case interpreting Article 21 narrowly.
Court held that as long as a law existed, personal liberty could be curtailed.
Literal interpretation, showing restraint.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Though the court eventually allowed review of President’s Rule, it showed restraint by upholding federalism and limited its interference.

Judicial Activism vs Restraint in the Indian Context: Balancing Act
India follows a written Constitution, with clear separation of powers, but flexibility in interpretation has allowed the judiciary to evolve doctrines like:
Basic Structure, Expanded Article 21 rights, PIL jurisprudence. However, courts have also cautioned against judicial overreach, especially in administrative and policy matters.

Conclusion:
Judicial Activism ensures justice is not denied where legislation or executive action is lacking or harmful.
Judicial Restraint ensures courts do not assume legislative or executive functions, preserving democracy and separation of powers.
The Indian judiciary has oscillated between the two philosophies, often balancing activism for rights with restraint for institutional integrity.