Menu Close


By J.S. Aiswarya Lakshmi & C. Amirdha Varshini

The three organs of the state are executive, legislature, and judiciary and have distinct functions to perform. Judicial activism is the special power given to the Supreme Court to extend their capacity when other organs of the government neglect to perform their duty or to carry out their responsibility. Judicial activism is supported by Article 142 of the Indian constitution. Too much of judicial activism may also destroy the pure essence of Article 142. In some cases, the Supreme Court would have interfered into the functions of legislative and executive organs of the government which leads to judicial overreach. There is a narrow difference between judicial activism and judicial overreach, the former is essential to attain justice where the latter may or may not achieve justice but destroys the concept of separation of powers. Judicial activism is meant for protecting justice but judges might be influenced by their personal affairs. Some critics said whether it is necessary to pass a decree by overruling the existing laws? At this point, we realize that though India prefers equality not every people in India is able to attain justice equally. For these people, judicial activism acts as a life savior. But there are also circumstances where few people misuse their influence. Here comes the question which the supreme court is practicing more, judicial activism or overreach? Our paper will throw light on a proactive and integrated approach towards the same.


©2020- Lex Humanitariae: Journal for a Change