Abstract
The relationship between judicial activism and separation of powers has been a hot topic in the judicial field. This paper studies the consistency between judicial activism and the principle of separation of powers in common law. Judicial activism involves judges taking an active role in promoting legal and social change, thereby challenging the traditional judicial role. The main argument is that judicial activism is essential to maintain the adaptability and flexibility of the law, especially in a rapidly changing social, technological and economic environment. Through the analysis of landmark cases such as Mabo v Queensland, No. 2 and R v Dugan, this paper shows how judicial activism can address legislative gaps to ensure justice and equity. In addition, it discusses the need to improve the legal framework to enable judges to make proactive decisions within clearly defined parameters. The conclusions highlight the indispensable role of judicial activism in maintaining a dynamic and responsive legal system, upholding democratic values, and preserving public trust.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Social Sciences and Public Administration
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
