Judicial Activism

A judiciary is an independent, unprejudiced and unbiased body in India. It function according to the framework of the constitution of India. Judicial Activism is a legal term, which meaning is the rulings of the court, based on the political, personal factors of the Judges, rather than current or existing legislation. judicial activism is a judicial decision-making by judges on the public policy, by considering their personal views and other factors, to guide their decisions.

Impacts of Judicial Activism On Executive and Judiciary in India

The judicial activism was evolved through the process of judicial review in Britain. in Britain 1610, The Chief Justice of Britain Coke stated first time that, if a law made by Parliament or executive breached the principles of fundamental law; and ‘reason, then it could be reviewed and adjudicated as void by the judiciary.the main authority of Judicial activism in India is the Supreme Court and the high courts, but the subordinate courts don't have this power, to declare law and regulations unconstitutional and void made by executive, if they breach or incompatible according to the constitutional clauses. initially The Supreme Court of India was the technocratic court but now more active through constitutional interpretation. through the involvement of supreme court in interpretation of law and statutes of Judicial Review. After the independence, the executive and legislative bodies dominated and intervened in the working of the judiciary. in 70s the Apex court started the judicial structural review of the constitution.

In the landmark case of Keshwananda Bharti the apex court of India declared that the executive had no right to intercede and tamper the basic structure of the constitution, the concept of judicial activism started gaining more power from there. in the case Golaknath vs State Of Punjab the Supreme Court declared that, Fundamental Rights are immune and cannot be amended by the legislative assembly.