Home / Current Issue / Paper 1715899
Constitutional Law and Judicial Activism: Guardianship and Reform in The Indian Democratic Framework
Subject area: Science,Engineering and Technology · Area of research: LAW
DOI: 10.64388/IREV9I10-1715899
Abstract
Judicial activism serves as a dynamic instrument in upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice in a democratic framework. It signifies the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and expanding the scope of fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. Through judicial activism, courts have not merely confined themselves to the literal interpretation of law but have also assumed the responsibility of addressing social injustices and governmental inaction. This approach enhances accountability and strengthens the rule of law by bridging the gap between the ideal and the real in governance. The evolution of judicial activism in India can be traced through landmark judgments such as KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA1 AND MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA2, where the judiciary asserted its power to review and protect constitutional supremacy. The emergence of public interest litigation (PIL) further extended access to justice, making the courts accessible to marginalized and voiceless sections of society. However, excessive judicial intervention has also raised concerns regarding the separation of powers and the potential encroachment upon legislative and executive functions. In essence, judicial activism acts as both a guardian and a reformer of constitutional principles, striving to maintain the balance between authority and liberty. It embodies the spirit of the constitution, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done in every aspect of public life.
Keywords
Judicial Activism, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Public Interest Litigation, Rule of Law, Separation Of Powers, Basic Structure Doctrine, Judicial Review.
References
[1] Kesavananda bharati v. State of kerala, air 1973 sc 1461.
[2] Maneka gandhi v. Union of India, air 1978 sc 597.
[3] A.k. Gopalan v. State of madras, air 1950 sc 27.
[4] Golak nath v. State of punjab, air 1967 sc 1643.
[5] Adm jabalpur v. Shivakant shukla, air 1976 sc 1207.
[6] Hussainara khatoon v. State of bihar, air 1979 sc 1360.
[7] M.c. Mehta v. Union of India, air 1987 sc 965.
[8] Vineet narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 scc 226.
[9] Olga tellis v. Bombay municipal corporation, air 1986 sc 180.
[10] Justice k.s. Puttaswamy (retd.) V. Union of India, (2017) 10 scc 1.
[11] Minerva mills ltd. V. Union of India, air 1980 sc 1789.
[12] Vishka v. State of rajasthan, air 1997 sc 3011.
[13] Navtej singh johar v. Union of India, air 2018 sc 4321.
[14] Indian young lawyers association & ors. V. State of kerala (sabarimala case), (2019) 11 scc 1.
[15] Bandhua mukti morcha v. Union of India, air 1984 sc 802.
[16] S.p. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 (supp) scc 87.
[17] Vellore citizens welfare forum v. Union of India, air 1996 sc 2715.
[18] Bhagwati, p.n. (1985). "judicial activism and public interest litigation." columbia journal of transnational law, 23(3), 561-578.
[19] Sathe, s.p. (2002). Judicial activism in India: transgressing borders and enforcing limits. Oxford university press.
[20] Austin, granville (1999). Working a democratic constitution: the Indian experience. Oxford university press.
[21] Bhachar, surya prakash (2020). "the basic structure doctrine: a half-century of constitutional defiance." journal of the Indian law institute, 62(2), 155-180.
[22] The government of the republic of south africa v. Grootboom (2000) zacc 19.
How to cite this paper
@article{1715899,
author = {Utkarsh Mishra, Dr. Vir Vikram Bahadur Singh},
title = {Constitutional Law and Judicial Activism: Guardianship and Reform in The Indian Democratic Framework},
journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
year = {2026},
volume = {9},
number = {10},
pages = {201-211},
issn = {2456-8880},
url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1715899.pdf},
abstract = {Judicial activism serves as a dynamic instrument in upholding constitutional values and ensuring justice in a democratic framework. It signifies the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting and expanding the scope of fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. Through judicial activism, courts have not merely confined themselves to the literal interpretation of law but have also assumed the responsibility of addressing social injustices and governmental inaction. This approach enhances accountability and strengthens the rule of law by bridging the gap between the ideal and the real in governance. The evolution of judicial activism in India can be traced through landmark judgments such as KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA1 AND MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA2, where the judiciary asserted its power to review and protect constitutional supremacy. The emergence of public interest litigation (PIL) further extended access to justice, making the courts accessible to marginalized and voiceless sections of society. However, excessive judicial intervention has also raised concerns regarding the separation of powers and the potential encroachment upon legislative and executive functions. In essence, judicial activism acts as both a guardian and a reformer of constitutional principles, striving to maintain the balance between authority and liberty. It embodies the spirit of the constitution, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done in every aspect of public life.},
keywords = {Judicial Activism, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Public Interest Litigation, Rule of Law, Separation Of Powers, Basic Structure Doctrine, Judicial Review.},
month = {April},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I10-1715899}
}