LLM Notes: The Judiciary as Guardian: How Judicial Activism Protects Fundamental Rights in India"

 The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in safeguarding fundamental rights through judicial activism, a proactive approach where courts interpret the Constitution expansively to address governance gaps and societal inequities. This doctrine empowers courts to intervene when legislative or executive actions infringe upon constitutional rights, ensuring justice for marginalized groups and evolving rights in line with democratic values. Below is an analysis of this concept, supported by landmark cases:

The judiciary derives its authority from key constitutional provisions:

• : Guarantees the right to constitutional remedies, enabling direct appeals to the Supreme Court for enforcement of rights.

• : Empowers High Courts to issue writs for rights protection.

• : Allow the Supreme Court to pass orders for "complete justice" and grant special leave to appeal, respectively.

These provisions enable courts to act as guardians of fundamental rights, even in the absence of legislative action.

1.

• :
  The Supreme Court reinterpreted Article 21 to include the right to livelihood and due process, overturning the restrictive interpretation in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950). The Court ruled that any law depriving life or liberty must be "just, fair, and reasonable"

  • : Transformed Article 21 into a cornerstone for rights like privacy, healthcare, and dignity.

• :
  Recognized the right to livelihood as integral to the right to life, protecting slum dwellers from arbitrary eviction.

2.

• :
  Introduced the basic structure doctrine, asserting that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s core principles (e.g., judicial review, fundamental rights). This curbed legislative overreach.

• :
  Strengthened the basic structure doctrine by invalidating amendments that sought to limit judicial review

3.

• :
  Laid down Vishakha Guidelines to combat workplace sexual harassment, later codified into law in 2013.

• :
  Decriminalized consensual same-sex relations by striking down Section 377 of the IPC, affirming dignity and equality under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

4.

• :
  Established the absolute liability principle for industries causing environmental harm, ensuring compensation for victims.

• :
  Recognized the right to a speedy trial, leading to the release of under-trial prisoners detained for years without trial.

5.

• :
  Declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21, influencing subsequent rulings on data protection and autonomy.

PILs democratized access to justice by allowing citizens to petition courts on behalf of marginalized groups. Notable examples include:

• : Directed municipalities to address public health hazards.

• : U.pheld labor rights, prohibiting exploitation of workers

While judicial activism has driven social reform, critics argue it risks judicial overreach, encroaching on legislative domains. Cases like ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), where the Court upheld suspension of habeas corpus during the Emergency, highlight occasional failures. However, subsequent rulings have reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to rights protection.

Conclusion

Through judicial activism, the Indian judiciary has dynamically interpreted the Constitution to address emerging challenges—from gender equality to environmental crises. Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi, Kesavananda Bharati, and Navtej Singh Johar illustrate how courts have expanded fundamental rights, ensuring they remain relevant in a changing society. While balancing activism with restraint remains critical, this approach has solidified the judiciary’s role as the protector of India’s democratic ethos.

Print Page