1. Origins and Evolution of Judicial Activism

• Definition: Refers to the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting laws to address social issues and protect citizens' rights.
• Global Context:
  • Originated in the U.S. under Chief Justice Earl Warren (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education).
• Indian Context:
  • Emerged in the 1970s-1980s post the judiciary's passive role during the Emergency (1975-1977).
  • Key Case: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla.
  • Judges like P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer expanded fundamental rights.

2. The Emergence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

• Definition: Allows individuals or groups to approach courts on behalf of the public or disadvantaged sections, bypassing traditional locus standi rules.
• Purpose: Ensures justice for marginalised groups unable to represent themselves.
• Landmark Case:
  • Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): Highlighted plight of undertrial prisoners and demonstrated PIL's potential for addressing systemic injustices.

3. Judicial Activism and PIL: A Symbiotic Relationship

• 3.1. Expansion of Fundamental Rights:
  • Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Recognised right to livelihood under Article 21.
  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines.
• 3.2. Environmental Protection:
  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986): Established absolute liability for hazardous industries.
  • Taj Trapezium Case (1996): Directed relocation of polluting industries near the Taj Mahal.
• 3.3. Social Justice and Human Rights:
  • Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): Addressed bonded labour issues.
  • People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): Advocated for workers' rights in Asiad projects.
• 3.4. Accountability of Public Authorities:
  • S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Asserted judicial authority over appointments.
  • Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997): Strengthened independence of the CBI.

4. Challenges and Criticisms of Judicial Activism and PIL

• 4.1. Judicial Overreach: Risks intruding on executive and legislative functions, undermining separation of powers.
• 4.2. Inconsistency in Decisions: PIL-based judgments may reflect judges' ideologies, leading to unpredictability.
• 4.3. Burden on Judiciary: Liberal locus standi rules increase frivolous PILs, overburdening courts.
• 4.4. Question of Legitimacy: Unelected judges shaping policies raises concerns over democratic accountability.

5. The Future of Judicial Activism and PIL in India

• 5.1. Strengthening Procedural Safeguards:
  • Stricter scrutiny to prevent misuse.
  • Imposing costs on frivolous petitions.
• 5.2. Promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Encouraging mediation and arbitration to reduce judicial workload.
• 5.3. Enhancing Accountability: Closer monitoring of implementation and collaboration with other government branches.
• 5.4. Fostering Public Awareness: Educating citizens on rights and legal mechanisms for justice delivery.

6. Conclusion

• Achievements: Promoted social justice, expanded fundamental rights, and ensured government accountability.
• Challenges: Risks overreach and inefficiency.
• Way Forward: Balance activism with restraint, focusing on genuine public interest while respecting democratic principles.
• Significance: Judicial activism and PILs remain vital tools for protecting marginalised communities and addressing systemic issues.