Judicial Review, Activism and PIL
NCERT Class 11 - Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 6
Judicial Review, Activism and PIL
Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine whether a law or executive action is consistent with the Constitution and to declare it void if it is not. It is the mechanism that makes the Constitution supreme rather than Parliament.
Basis and scope of judicial review
- The phrase judicial review does not appear as such, but the power flows from several provisions - Article 13 makes laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void; Articles 32 and 226 provide the remedy; Articles 131 to 136 give the appellate and original jurisdiction; and Article 246 with the Seventh Schedule fixes the limits of legislative competence.
- Three kinds of action can be reviewed - legislative enactments of Parliament and state legislatures, executive orders and administrative action, and constitutional amendments against the basic structure.
- A law can be struck down on three broad grounds - it violates a Fundamental Right, the legislature lacked competence, or it damages the basic structure.
- Judicial review applies in the same way to state laws, which keeps the federal distribution of powers enforceable.
Judicial activism and PIL
- Judicial activism means the court going beyond a narrow reading of the law to give effect to constitutional values, often by issuing detailed directions to the executive.
- Its most important vehicle is public interest litigation, developed from the late 1970s, associated with Justices P. N. Bhagwati and V. R. Krishna Iyer.
- PIL relaxed the rule of locus standi, so that any public-spirited person may approach the court on behalf of those unable to come themselves.
- Procedure was simplified to the point where a letter or a newspaper report has been treated as a writ petition - sometimes called epistolary jurisdiction.
- Areas transformed by PIL include bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, environmental protection, the right to food, and the rights of the disabled and of children.
The debate on judicial overreach
| Argument for activism | Argument against |
|---|---|
| Fills the gap when the executive fails to act | Courts lack the expertise and data to frame policy |
| Gives the poor an accessible remedy | Judges are not elected and are not accountable to voters |
| Protects Fundamental Rights in practice, not just in text | Detailed directions blur the separation of powers |
| Makes Directive Principles effective through Article 21 | Adds to pendency by opening the door too wide |
- The term judicial overreach is used when the court is seen to take over functions that properly belong to the executive or legislature.
- The counter-argument is that activism is a response to institutional failure, not a cause of it, and that the court usually acts because a right is being violated with no other remedy available.
- The balanced position is that judicial review is essential, activism is legitimate in defence of rights, and restraint is required in matters of policy and resource allocation.
हिंदी संकेत: न्यायिक पुनरावलोकन संवैधानिक शक्ति है, जबकि न्यायिक सक्रियता उस शक्ति के प्रयोग की शैली है। दोनों एक नहीं हैं - यही अंतर प्रश्नों में पूछा जाता है।
Exam me kaise aata hai
Factual questions ask which article is the basis of judicial review and who is associated with PIL. Statement-based questions test the difference between review, activism and overreach. Application questions give a court order and ask whether it is review or overreach.
UPSC / State PSC ke liye
For an essay, structure the answer as power, practice and limit - judicial review is the constitutional power, activism is how it has been practised since the 1980s, and the limit is that courts should not substitute their judgement for policy choices made by elected bodies. Cite the expansion of Article 21 as the clearest illustration of activism achieving substantive results.
Yahan confuse hote hain
✗ Judicial review is mentioned by name in the Constitution | ✓ The power flows from several articles but the phrase is not used as such
✗ PIL requires the petitioner to be personally affected | ✓ PIL relaxed locus standi; any public-spirited person may approach the court
✗ Judicial activism and judicial review mean the same thing | ✓ Review is the power; activism is a style of exercising it
Ek nazar me
- Judicial review lets courts declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional.
- Its basis lies in Articles 13, 32, 226, 131 to 136 and 246.
- Grounds - violation of Fundamental Rights, lack of legislative competence, damage to the basic structure.
- Public interest litigation developed from the late 1970s under Justices Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer.
- PIL relaxed locus standi and allowed letters to be treated as petitions.
- Activism is defended as filling institutional gaps and criticised as blurring the separation of powers.