Human rights—those inalienable liberties and entitlements every individual possesses by virtue of being human, form the bedrock of modern democratic states. In India, these rights are enshrined and protected under both the Fundamental Rights (Part III) and the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) of the Constitution. While legislatures enact laws and executives implement policies, the judiciary plays an indispensable role in enforcing and expanding these rights, especially when other branches fail to act. This proactive judicial stance is termed judicial activism.
Judicial activism refers to the willingness of courts often the highest constitutional courts to interpret the Constitution and statutes in a broad manner, to fill gaps in the law, and to step in where the legislative or executive branches have been remiss. In India, judicial activism has driven major socio-political reforms, protected marginalized communities, and ensured the enforcement of environmental, economic, and cultural rights. This article traces the concept and evolution of judicial activism in India, examines its impact on human rights protection, explores landmark judgments, and discusses the fine line between activism and overreach.
Defining Judicial Activism
The term “judicial activism” was first popularized by U.S. historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1947 to describe Supreme Court decisions that overturned legislative and executive actions perceived as unjust. At its core, judicial activism denotes:
A proactive interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions.
- Filling legislative gaps with reasoned rulings where Parliament or state legislatures have remained silent or ineffective.
- Expanding fundamental rights beyond strict textual readings, to achieve substantive justice.
- Influencing socio-political reforms through declaratory orders, writs, and guidelines.
In India, pioneers of judicial activism include Justice P.N. Bhagwati, who popularized Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to democratize access to the courts, and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, celebrated for his humane, rights-oriented judgments. Through bold constitutional interpretations, they transformed India’s judiciary into an effective guardian of rights.
Historical Phases of Judicial Activism in India
1. Pre-Emergency Era (1950–1975)
Following independence, India’s Supreme Court adopted a relatively cautious stance. It respected legislative supremacy and refrained from expansive readings of the Constitution. However, it firmly established the Basic Structure Doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), holding that Parliament could not amend the Constitution’s fundamental framework.
2. Post-Emergency Era (1975–1990)
The Emergency (1975–77) witnessed severe curtailment of civil liberties. In its aftermath, the Court adopted a more activist posture to restore and protect individual rights. The landmark Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) ruling transformed Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty, into a broad guarantee encompassing dignity, travel, privacy, and legal procedure. Around the same time, PIL emerged as a tool for social justice, allowing any citizen or NGO to seek judicial remedies on behalf of those unable to approach the courts.
3. Liberalization Era (1990–2010)
Economic liberalization and rising environmental concerns shaped this phase. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court issued binding guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, filling a legislative void until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. In environmental matters, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996) and the Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) applied the precautionary principle and polluter pays doctrine, both imported concepts, thereby pioneering judicial environmentalism.
4. Contemporary Era (2010–Present)
With rapid technological change and evolving social mores, the Court has continued its activist trajectory. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India* (2018), the Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts by reading down Section 377 of the IPC, recognizing the rights to autonomy, dignity, and sexual orientation under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Human Rights under the Indian Constitution
Fundamental Rights (Part III)
- Right to Equality (Articles 14–18) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and ensures equal protection of the law.
- Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22) guarantees freedoms such as speech, assembly, and movement and provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest.
- Right Against Exploitation (Articles 23–24) prohibits human trafficking, forced labor, and child labor.
- Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28) secures religious liberty.
- Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30) protect the interests of minorities in preserving their culture and establishing educational institutions.
- Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32) empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV)
- Aim to secure social and economic welfare, including equal pay for equal work, free legal aid, right to education, and environmental protection.
- Though not enforceable in courts, they guide governance and legislative policy.
Role of Judicial Activism in Protecting Human Rights
The interplay between judicial activism and human rights protection manifests in multiple domains:
1. Expansion of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty
In Maneka Gandhi, the Court introduced due process into Indian law by insisting that any law depriving a person of life or liberty must be “right, just and fair,” not arbitrary or oppressive. In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992), the Court read the right to education into Article 21, striking down unaffordable private school fees.
2. Environmental Justice
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum(1996) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 onward) shaped India’s environmental jurisprudence, mandating sustainable development, environmental impact assessments, and corporate accountability for pollution.
3. Protection of Marginalized Groups
Vishaka (1997) safeguarded women’s right to a safe workplace. In NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Court recognized the rights of transgender persons under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, directing governments to provide affirmative measures.
4. Prison Reforms and Custodial Rights
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Court laid down 11 binding guidelines, such as immediate arrest memo, periodic medical examination, and legal counsel access to curb custodial torture and deaths.
Judicial Activism Versus Judicial Overreach
While judicial activism has yielded profound social benefits, critics argue it risks overreach when courts:
- Encroach upon policy decisions best left to elected representatives.
- Issue open-ended directives without mechanisms for enforcement or accountability.
- Legislate from the bench rather than interpret existing statutes.
Conclusion
Over the past seven decades, India’s judiciary has evolved from a cautious interpreter of laws into a robust protector of human rights. Through judicial activism, courts have expanded the ambit of fundamental rights, promoted socio-economic justice, safeguarded the environment, and empowered marginalized communities. Landmark judgments from Kesavananda Bharati to Puttaswamy—underscore the judiciary’s vital role in preserving constitutional democracy.
As India confronts new challenges digital privacy, artificial intelligence, climate change, and social inequities the judiciary will continue to play a pivotal role in interpreting the Constitution’s promise of justice, liberty, equality, and dignity for all. Ensuring that this role remains principled, transparent, and accountable is essential for safeguarding human rights “beyond the bench.”
Contributed by: Vanshika Dhiman (Intern)