Judicial activism must re-emerge as guardians, finally rescuing the populace and reminding/pressuring the authorities to carry out their duties. There is no disputing that we are living in unprecedented times, but it is equally true that extraordinary circumstances necessitate extraordinary answers, or at the very least a genuine attempt to deliver extraordinary remedies. The inhabitants are not upset because the standards are not being met due to a lack of resources; rather, the actual issue is a lack of complete will. The second wave appears to have been abandoned by all authorities, or at least policymakers. They have accepted defeat in front of the court.
Separation of powers, judicial review, judicial activism, and the role of the judiciary across time are discussed in the sections that follow.
Many people and in various locations have defined the term “separation of powers,” including multiple judicial rulings. However, the meaning of power separation can be divided into three categories:
A person who is a part of one organ should not be a part of another.
1.The functioning of one organ should not be hampered by the functioning of the others.
2. It is not appropriate for one organ to perform the functions of another.
3. It was admittedly done since none of the organs could possibly conduct all of the functions in a systematic and suitable manner.
As a result, the powers are divided among the legislative, executive, and judiciary in order for them to work properly. Let us now look into the specifics of each organ’s operation.
The legislature’s primary role is to enact legislation. Enacting a law conveys the state’s will and also serves as a waiver of the state’s autonomy. It is the foundation upon which the executive and judicial branches of government operate. Executives are in charge of carrying out, carrying out, or enforcing the state’s will as expressed by the constituent assembly and the legislature.
1) Legislative Action Reviews,
2) Judicial Decision Reviews, and
3) Administrative Action Reviews
are the three types of judicial review. As a result, judges have a responsibility to maintain the balance of power, protect human rights, fundamental rights, and people’ rights to life and liberty.
The Evolution of Judicial Activism
For the first decade after independence, judicial activism was essentially non-existent; the government’s executive and legislative institutions actively dominated and intervened in the judiciary’s operations. The Supreme Court began to consider the judicial and structural aspects of the constitution in the 1970s.
The Golaknath case, the nationalisation of banks case, the elimination of privy purses case, and the Minerva mills case are all examples of judicial review.
When it comes to judicial activism, one of the most common criticisms we hear is that it is done in the guise of interpreting constitutional provisions. The claims are that the judiciary frequently rewrites them without saying so. Some of the judges’ personal beliefs become legal principles and constitutional values as a result of this process.
Another critique is that, in the name of judicial activism, the principle of separation of powers is thrown out the window, and the judiciary is undermining the legislative and executive branches of government by intruding into their domains.
In summary, I believe that judicial activism has both positive and harmful aspects. If the court meddles too much in the operations of other government institutions and attempts to overstep its constitutional authority, the concept of judicial activism loses its significance and meaning. Power separation theory is being undermined in the name of activism, and the judiciary frequently rewrites personal opinions in the name of activism.