“Law and justice can no longer remain distant neighbours if the increasing deficiencies and distortions of the legal system and the challenge to the credibility of the the jurispendence are to be adequately met.”
As being published and understood, judicial activism is neither a casual occurence nor a reaction. Its basic source can be gathered from the concept of “public interest litigation”. While interpreting the principles of “locus standi” under Art 32 of the constiution of India. Hon’ble justice P.N. Bhagwati (judge, supreme court of India, ) first of all, declared the concept of public interest litigation and judicial system. Insertion of art 39h in the constitution developed the process of public interest litigation, Lok Adalat, legal literacy camps and legal aid, etc, It developed a belief in the hearts of public at large that they will not be deprived of social justice. Even if a person is financially very weak and not even in a position to knock the doors of the court, then also he will administered justice. By sending a single post-card , by publishing a news in some news paper or through a representative , down trodden citizen can hope that the courts will initiate judicial proceeding and imparat justice. Public interest litigation have inspired the hopes in the minds of public at large that now they will neither tolerate the irresponsible acts and omissions of the executive and the legislature nor corruptions prevailing in several sectors. People started to think the inactive legislature and weak executive are not in a position to save the democracy. In such a state of affairs, the people preferred to take shelter of judiciary, and the judciary, in this compelling situation , had to make and enforce laws, while interpreting the constitution and the statutes. This tendencey of the judiciary has been given the aforesaid name of judicial activism.
Supreme court and high court have been empowered under arts 32 and 226 respectively to protect and enforce, the fundamental rights of the citizens of India by issuing and direction, order or writ. Had the judiciary been not in a position to adhere to judicial activism, the bonded labourers would not have been liberalised , child labourres would not been saved, no efforts would have been done for purification of pollution or for welfare of the under trial prisioners nor judicial proceedings would have been started in the case of Bofors , Hawalas, Saintkits, Fodder, Uria allotment of petrol-pumps etc, scandals and scams.
Some persons having their vested interest may criticise that the interest of judiciary is overacting to pose itself as superion to other wings of the democracy. That is why, probably, Ex-prime minister Shri Gujral told that the we are making “Super-institution”. But it can only be his political thinking . In fact , where there is rule of law, the principle of separation of powers is in vogue, which is based on check and balance system. All the three wings. i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary work within their limiations. Justice J.S. Verma once observed:-
“The contorversy being generated over the supremacy of the three wings of democracy. Judiciary, Legislative and Executive, was a futile exercise. Neither the Legislatve nor the Executive nor even the judiciary is superior. It is the people who are supreme.
If we carefully analyse the situation, it reveals that generally corrupt politicians and officers praise this tendency of the judiciary, because it has in fact imparted social justice to down-trodden and common people.
