Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach : Striking a Constitutional Equilibrium

I. Introduction The doctrine of separation of powers envisages a functional balance between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary under the Indian Constitution. While each organ has distinct roles, the judiciary’s function as the final interpreter of the Constitution places it at the heart of democratic accountability. Over time, courts have expanded their role beyond adjudication to address governance gaps, particularly through Public Interest Litigation (PIL). However, when judicial interventions move beyond interpretation into legislative or executive domains, they risk becoming judicial overreach. The key issue is not whether the judiciary should be active, but how far such intervention can extend within constitutional limits.

II. Judicial Activism: Concept and Scope Judicial activism refers to an approach where courts go beyond the strict text of law to protect constitutional values and promote justice. It recognizes that constitutional provisions must be dynamic and purposive to address evolving societal needs.

A. Constitutional Foundation Judicial activism draws legitimacy from Articles 13, 32, and 226, empowering courts to protect and enforce fundamental rights.

B. Key Characteristics

• Expanding the ambit of rights through liberal interpretation.
• Ensuring governmental accountability.
• Filling legal and policy gaps.
• Acting as a constitutional check on arbitrary state power.

C. Landmark Cases

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala – Propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine limiting Parliament’s amending power.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan – Laid down guidelines on workplace sexual harassment due to legislative vacuum.
• Prakash Singh v. Union of India – Issued directions for police reforms to ensure transparency and accountability.

III. Judicial Overreach: A Constitutional Concern Judicial overreach occurs when the judiciary encroaches into legislative or executive functions, exercising powers outside its constitutional mandate. While activism supplements governance, overreach substitutes it, disturbing institutional balance.

A. Indicators of Judicial Overreach

• Directing or formulating policy matters.
• Interfering with administrative discretion or budget allocation.
• Mandating legislative priorities or timelines.
• Exercising powers not contemplated by the Constitution.

B. Consequences

• Weakening the separation of powers.
• Undermining democratic accountability.
• Eroding judicial legitimacy.

IV. Activism vs Overreach: Drawing the Line

V. The Role of PILs and Expanding Judicial Function PILs were intended to expand access to justice for vulnerable groups, but have sometimes been used to seek judicial directions on policy issues, raising concerns about judicial overreach.

In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, the Supreme Court warned that judges should not “run the government” in the name of activism.

VI. Constitutional Morality and Judicial Self-Restraint While activism has advanced constitutional democracy, judicial self-restraint is essential to maintain institutional legitimacy. Courts must respect the limits of their constitutional role to ensure institutional balance, democratic accountability, and judicial credibility.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jeet S. Bisht, the Court held that excessive interference in administrative matters amounts to assuming the functions of another branch of government.

VII. Conclusion Judicial activism has played a vital role in social transformation, rights protection, and constitutional evolution. However, when judicial interventions exceed constitutional boundaries, they become judicial overreach, undermining the framework they intend to protect. The future of judicial review depends on a balanced approach—asserting activism when necessary while practicing restraint to preserve the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.