Judicial Activism VIS-A-VIS Judicial Overreach: A Comparative Study

Abstract

In India, the parliamentary system of government is used. There are three institutions of the state’s governance in our country: the legislature, which is accountable for passing legislation, the executive branch, which is in charge of putting laws into effect, and the judicial system, which comprehends laws passed by the legislature and gives the executive branch guidance when it fails to do so. Even when a clear separation of authority is impracticable, the three branches should work together and collaborate. In contrast to the US, India does not rigorously adhere to the idea of a division of strengths. Thanks to a system of keeping each branch at it’s own place that has been established, the court has the power to invalidate any unconstitutional legislation that the legislature approves. There is no question that the judiciary's role changes from the traditional position into a more proactively participating role to accommodate the progressive culture. The court system tries to uphold citizen rights and restrict constitutional violations by others, but it occasionally goes beyond the bounds of the system by applying judicial reasoning and intellect, which is when “judicial activism” is introduced. The goal of the contemporary judicial philosophy of "judicial activism" is to ensure fair and proper justice for everybody. It is stated that if judges utilize this tool arbitrarily, it should be considered judicial overreach.