Deciphering Judicial Activism- A case for PILs

In 1990s,country witnessed unstable coalition governments,politicisation of crimes,high levels of corruption,policy paralysis.Legislature and Executive lost their credibility among the masses. Judiciary stepped in and assumed pro-active role in providing solutions resulting in Judicial Activism.As a result of it, Judiciary has entered into the domains of legislature and executive.The concept of Public Interest Litigation was introduced under which any person can approach judiciary as long as public interest is involved. PIL thus removed the limitation of locus standi. It has enabled justice for disadvantaged sections of society. PIL was made popular in India by P.N.Bhagwati and V.R.Krishna Iyer. It was through judicial activism that the Supreme Court in 2001 ordered States to provide mid-day meals to schoolchildren.

Critics say PIL is anything but Public Interest Litigation.They call is Profit/Publicity/Personal Interest Litigation. 

• PILs are often filed for gaining publicity.
• They are frequently used against political and business rivals.
• Judical Activism has disturbed the delicate balance of power. It has resulted in Judicial Adventurism. Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Adventurism is subjective i.e. depends upon perspective. Uniform Civil Code and Interlinking of rivers are policy decisions. Law making should lie in the exclusive domain of Legislature. Salwa Judum was related to the maintenance of law and order which falls in the domain of the Executive. Judiciary should stop meddling in matters lying in the jurisdiction of Legislature and Executive.
• Critics say personal opinion has been expressed in the form of judgements like :"Neoliberal policies of government is a cause of corruption"."Bhagwad Geeta should be made compulsory"."Government should be carried on the lines of Rajya Sabha."
• In the name of Judicial Activism,courts have neglected their traditional functions.4.5 million cases are pending with our judiciary and it would take 300 years to come out with judgements for them,provided no fresh cases are filed. Before reforming other institutions, Judiciary should first look into itself. There is secrecy in the functioning of judiciary.India is the only country wherein the judges appoint themselves.Hence Judiciary is itself not accountable.Critics say Judicial Activism is undemocratic in nature because Judges are not popularly elected.Ergo they cannot formulate or declare laws.

Arguments in favour:

• Through PILs, Judiciary has ensured the accountability of Legislature and Executive towards citizens, thus promoting the ideals of democracy.As long as welfare of the people is ensured,it hardly matters who is doing it.
• After all,Judiciary is forced to intervene because of the inactions of Legislature and Executive. It is natural that if any of the organs fail to do its mandated duties,then some other organ should come and fill in the vacuum.
• Judiciary has realised the abuse of PILs and the High courts have been forbidden to accept frivolous PILs. If a PIL has been filed with an ulterior motive,the person is liable to be punished with a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.

A case has been made for supporting PILs in the post titled 'Landmark judgements that changed India'.