What is the meaning of 'Judicial Activism'? Give arguments in favour and against.

Introduction: Judicial Activism refers to a proactive, dynamic role played by the judiciary in protecting citizens' fundamental rights, promoting social justice, and compelling the executive and legislature to perform their constitutional obligations. Pioneered in India during the late 1970s by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer through Public Interest Litigation (PIL), it transformed the Supreme Court into a "people's court".

1. Arguments in Favour of Judicial Activism:

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: Expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life) to encompass the right to clean environment (Subhash Kumar case), right to privacy (Puttaswamy case), right to education (Mohini Jain case), and right to speedy trial.
• Filling Legislative and Executive Vacuums: Stepped in when the legislature failed to enact laws on pressing issues by issuing binding guidelines, such as the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) for prevention of sexual harassment at workplace.
• Checking Corruption & Promoting Transparency: Directed investigation in major scams (2G Spectrum, Coal Block allocations) and mandated political disclosure of criminal antecedents of candidates (ADR case, 2002).
• Environmental Justice & Public Health: Enforced closure of polluting tanneries along Ganga (M.C. Mehta case), introduced CNG in Delhi public transport, and monitored ecological rehabilitation.
• Voice for the Marginalized: Relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi, enabling bonded laborers, undertrials, and inmates to seek direct constitutional justice through postal letters and PILs.

2. Arguments Against Judicial Activism (Risks of Judicial Overreach):

• Violation of Separation of Powers: Under the constitutional scheme (Articles 50, 121, 211), governance requires separation of powers. Entering the policy-making realm of executive/legislature disturbs institutional checks and balances.
• Lack of Accountability & Democratic Mandate: Judges are not elected by the people and cannot be voted out, whereas executive/legislature remain directly accountable to the electorate.
• Lack of Technical Expertise: Courts lack specialized administrative, economic, and scientific expertise to manage macroeconomic policies, tariff structures, or executive management.
• Judicial Backlog & Delay: Diverts precious judicial time away from clearing massive arrears of routine civil and criminal litigation (over 5 crore pending cases across Indian courts).
• Unenforceability & Risk of Loss of Public Trust: Over-issuing utopian directives that the executive cannot practically enforce risks eroding the moral authority and institutional sanctity of the judiciary.

Conclusion: Judicial Activism is a vital constitutional antidote to executive inertia, but it must be tempered with Judicial Restraint. As Justice A.S. Anand observed, the judiciary must remain an activist sentinel on the qui vive without usurping the legitimate constitutional domain of the legislature and executive.