Mention three demerits of Judicial Activism

We will understand what judicial activism means, and most importantly, we will discuss three major demerits or disadvantages of judicial activism. So, let’s begin step by step and make this topic super easy to understand.

What is Judicial Activism?

Before we talk about its demerits, we first need to understand what judicial activism actually is.

In simple words, Judicial Activism means that the judiciary, or the courts, take an active role in making sure justice is done, even if it means going beyond the usual limits of law.

Normally, in a democracy, there are three main organs of the government:

1. The Legislature, which makes the laws.

2. The Executive, which implements the laws.

3. The Judiciary, which interprets the laws.

Each organ has its own powers and duties. But sometimes, the judiciary steps in when it feels that the legislature or the executive is not doing its duty properly.
This is called Judicial Activism.

For example, when courts pass judgments that create new policies, or when they give directions to the government to take specific actions — that’s judicial activism.

It is often seen as a way for courts to protect the rights of citizens and uphold the Constitution.

Importance of Judicial Activism
Judicial activism has played a very important role in protecting democracy and ensuring justice.

In India, for example, judicial activism has helped in:

• Protecting fundamental rights of citizens.
• Making governments more accountable.
• Bringing attention to issues like environmental protection, corruption, and human rights.

Famous examples include the right to education, right to clean environment, and right to privacy — all of which have been strengthened by the Supreme Court through judicial activism.

So, yes, judicial activism has many benefits.
But it also has some demerits, or disadvantages, which can cause problems for the balance of power in a democracy.

Let’s now move to the main part of our discussion — three major demerits of judicial activism.

Demerit 1: Violation of the Principle of Separation of Powers

The first major demerit of judicial activism is that it can violate the principle of separation of powers.

Let’s understand this in simple terms.

In a democratic system, as we just discussed, the powers of government are divided among three organs — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
Each has its own role and must not interfere too much in the functions of the others.

The legislature makes laws,
the executive implements them,
and the judiciary interprets them.

When judges start taking decisions that look more like making new laws or running the government, they are stepping into the area of the legislature or executive.

This creates an imbalance in the system.

For example, if the court tells the government to create a new policy or to build something specific, it’s actually doing the work of the executive.
If it makes rules or laws through its judgments, it’s doing the work of the legislature.

This overreach by the judiciary is called Judicial Overreach, and it’s one of the biggest risks of judicial activism.

When this happens, it weakens the concept of checks and balances — the system that ensures that no organ of the government becomes too powerful.

So, while judicial activism may start with good intentions, it can harm democracy if the judiciary goes beyond its limits.

That’s why this is considered the first major demerit of judicial activism.

Demerit 2: Lack of Accountability

The second big demerit of judicial activism is that judges are not directly accountable to the people.

In a democracy, elected representatives like ministers and lawmakers are accountable to the people.
If they make a mistake, people can vote them out in the next election.

But judges are not elected — they are appointed.
So, if the judiciary makes a controversial or unpopular decision, the public has no direct way to question or change that.

This creates a problem when courts start taking too much power in their hands through judicial activism.

When courts pass orders that affect policies, budgets, or administrative decisions, but are not accountable for the consequences, it can lead to undemocratic governance.

For example, if a court orders the government to spend large amounts of money on a particular project, but there is no budget for it, the financial responsibility still lies with the government — not with the court.

In such situations, the judiciary exercises power without having to answer for its outcomes.

This lack of accountability is a serious issue because democracy depends on responsibility and answerability.

Therefore, judicial activism, if not balanced, can lead to a situation where unelected judges have too much power without being answerable to anyone.

That’s why it is considered the second major demerit of judicial activism.

Demerit 3: Possibility of Judicial Bias and Subjectivity

The third important demerit is that judicial activism can sometimes lead to bias or subjectivity in judgments.

Let’s understand this carefully.

When judges use their own interpretation to make decisions that go beyond existing laws, they are using their personal understanding of justice.
Different judges may have different opinions about what is right or wrong.

So, decisions may depend on the individual beliefs, values, or ideologies of the judges, rather than on objective legal principles.

For example, one judge may think that banning a certain practice is necessary for social reform, while another may think it violates freedom of choice.

When judicial activism becomes too dependent on personal viewpoints, it can lead to inconsistency in legal decisions.

This reduces the predictability of law, which is very important in any legal system.
Citizens, lawyers, and governments should be able to predict how a law will be interpreted — that’s what ensures fairness.

But when judicial activism turns into judicial subjectivism, where judges decide based on their personal opinions rather than established laws, it can harm the stability of the legal system.

Therefore, judicial bias or subjectivity is the third major demerit of judicial activism.

Other Minor Demerits (Brief Overview)

Apart from the three main demerits we discussed, there are also some other minor concerns:

• Delay in administration: Courts may interfere too much in executive functions, causing delays.
• Undermining public faith: Frequent interference by the judiciary can make people lose faith in other institutions.
• Political misuse: Sometimes, judicial activism is influenced by public pressure or political narratives.

These minor issues also add to the overall drawbacks of excessive judicial activism.

To conclude, judicial activism is an important and powerful tool for justice.
It helps protect fundamental rights and keeps the government accountable.
However, it must be used carefully and within proper limits.

If overused, it can disturb the balance of power, reduce accountability, and bring subjectivity into the legal system.

So, the three main demerits of judicial activism are:

1. Violation of separation of powers.

2. Lack of accountability.

3. Possibility of bias and subjectivity.

Judicial activism should, therefore, be balanced with judicial restraint, to maintain harmony between all organs of the government and to ensure true justice in a democracy.