Judicial Activism and Its Impact on Constitutional Governance in India

Abstract

Judicial activism has become one of the most contentious aspects of constitutional administration in India due to the judiciary's active role in interpreting and expanding constitutional provisions. Judicial activism, rooted in justice, liberty, and equality, has been used by the Supreme Court and High Courts to preserve fundamental rights, uphold the rule of law, and fill legislative or executive inadequacies. the history, scope, and effects of judicial activism in India, from early post-independence judgments to landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which established the basic structure doctrine, and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), which established workplace sexual harassment guidelines without legislation. Judicial activism has strengthened democratic values by broadening Article 21 to cover livelihood, health, environment, and education rights. It raises worries about judicial overreach, separation of powers, and parliamentary authority being undermined. The study emphasizes judicial activism's dual position as a defender of constitutional morality and a topic of democratic accountability by examining its positive and negative contributions. Judicial activism has deepened India's constitutional democracy, but it must be balanced to respect institutional bounds and promote peace between the legislative, executive, and judiciary.