Judicial Activism and PIL

5.1 Origins of Judicial Activism in India

Judicial Activism is the tendency of judges to interpret the Constitution expansively to protect rights and enforce accountability, often going beyond the literal text to give effect to constitutional values. It is distinct from the passive role of merely adjudicating disputes.

Two Foundational Pillars

Expanded Article 21:

• In Maneka Gandhi v. UoI (1978), the SC held that the right to life is not limited to mere physical existence but includes the right to live with dignity
• This opened the door to a vast range of rights derived from Article 21: right to health, education, livelihood, clean environment, speedy trial, legal aid

Public Interest Litigation (PIL):

• Developed by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the late 1970s–early 1980s
• Relaxation of locus standi — any person can file a PIL for those who cannot access courts (prisoners, bonded labourers, slum dwellers)
• Epistolary jurisdiction — a letter or postcard to the SC can be treated as a writ petition
• Suo motu cognisance — courts can take up matters on their own initiative from newspaper reports
• Socio-economic rights — PILs used to enforce rights not explicitly in the Constitution (right to food, shelter, clean air, education)

5.2 Landmark PIL Judgments

Case	Year	Issue	Outcome
Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar	1979	Undertrial prisoners	Recognised right to speedy trial under Article 21
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UoI	1984	Bonded labour	State directed to identify and rehabilitate bonded labourers
M.C. Mehta v. UoI (various)	1986+	Environmental pollution	Closure of polluting industries; CNG mandate for Delhi
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan	1997	Workplace sexual harassment	Vishakha Guidelines as law until POSH Act 2013
Unnikrishnan v. State of AP	1993	Right to education	Derived right to education from Articles 21 + 45
Vineet Narain v. UoI	1997	Hawala scandal	CBI independence from government interference
PUCL v. UoI	2001	Right to food	Mid-Day Meal Scheme ordered nationwide
Aruna Shanbaug v. UoI	2011	Passive euthanasia	Permitted passive euthanasia in specific conditions
K.S. Puttaswamy v. UoI	2017	Right to Privacy	Recognised as fundamental right under Article 21
Navtej Singh Johar v. UoI	2018	Section 377 IPC	Consensual same-sex relations decriminalised
Electoral Bonds case	2024	Anonymous political funding	Electoral Bonds Scheme declared unconstitutional

5.3 Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach

Arguments FOR Judicial Activism:

• Indian executive and legislature have failed to enforce constitutional promises
• Courts fill the vacuum when other institutions are captured by narrow interests
• PIL has been the only avenue for the poor and marginalised to access justice
• The basic structure doctrine protects democracy from populist amendments

Arguments AGAINST Judicial Overreach:

• Unelected judges should not make policy choices belonging to elected representatives
• PILs are sometimes misused for private interests (PILL — Private Interest Litigation in Law)
• Courts lack expertise and enforcement machinery for complex social/economic policy
• Adversarial approach inappropriate for policy implementation

---