JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND RESTRAINT IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Abstract

Judicial activism and judicial restraint represent two contrasting approaches to the exercise of judicial power, shaping the role of the judiciary in governance. In the Indian context, judicial activism has played a transformative role in expanding rights, ensuring social justice, and holding authorities accountable, often through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and expansive interpretations of constitutional provisions. Conversely, judicial restraint emphasizes deference to legislative and executive decisions, advocating for limited judicial intervention. This paper undertakes a comparative study of these two paradigms within India’s constitutional framework, analyzing landmark judgments, judicial trends, and their implications for democracy and separation of powers. By examining the balance between judicial overreach and necessary intervention, the study evaluates the judiciary’s evolving role in addressing socio-political challenges while maintaining institutional harmony. The paper also draws comparative insights from other jurisdictions to contextualize India’s approach. Ultimately, it seeks to assess whether judicial activism or restraint better serves India’s constitutional ideals and governance needs.