Judicial Review and Judicial Activism: A Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Interpretation

Judicial Review and Judicial Activism: A Comparative Analysis of Constitutional Interpretation

 Author: Dr. Brijesha V Reddy

  Independent Researcher

                                                                       Date :1st December 2024

Abstract

This paper explores the concepts of judicial review and judicial activism within constitutional democracies. By examining their evolution, landmark cases, and global perspectives, it highlights their impact on constitutional interpretation and the balance of powers. While judicial review safeguards constitutional supremacy, judicial activism serves as a tool for addressing societal challenges. The paper critically analyzes their roles, offering recommendations for achieving a balance that upholds justice, democracy, and rule of law.

Keywords: Judicial Review, Judicial Activism, Constitutional Interpretation, Separation of Powers

Introduction

Judicial review and judicial activism represent two cornerstones of modern constitutional democracies. Judicial review ensures the supremacy of the Constitution, acting as a check on legislative and executive overreach. Conversely, judicial activism empowers courts to address societal inequities and interpret constitutional principles progressively. This paper explores the evolution, significance, and interplay of these doctrines, drawing insights from landmark cases and comparative jurisdictions.

Literature Review

Evolution of Judicial Review

Judicial review originated in the United States with the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall established the judiciary's authority to review legislative actions.

Judicial Activism Across Jurisdictions

Judicial activism, unlike judicial review, has evolved through the proactive stances of courts worldwide. In India, activism has been instrumental in advancing rights through Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

Landmark Cases

Cases like Kesavananda Bharati (India), Brown v. Board of Education (U.S.), and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan showcase the profound impact of judicial activism.

Analysis

Judicial review ensures that legislative and executive actions align with constitutional principles, preserving the rule of law. Judicial activism complements this by addressing gaps in governance and interpreting constitutional provisions to meet societal needs.

Comparative Perspectives

The approaches to judicial review and activism vary globally, reflecting differences in constitutional frameworks and societal contexts. While U.S. courts emphasize restraint, Indian courts have embraced activism to address socio-economic issues.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Conclusion

Judicial review and judicial activism are integral to upholding constitutional democracy and advancing societal progress. However, a balance must be struck to prevent judicial overreach while maintaining accountability.

Recommendations

1. Courts should exercise activism judiciously, ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.2. Judicial decisions should be transparent, with detailed reasoning to enhance trust.3. Dialogue between government branches should be encouraged to address societal issues collaboratively.4. Judicial independence must be safeguarded to maintain impartiality.5. Comparative studies can offer valuable insights for refining judicial roles.6. Public awareness initiatives can promote understanding of judicial functions.

References

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.

Dworkin, Ronald. Law's Empire. Harvard University Press, 1986.

Baxi, Upendra. 'Courage, Craft, and Contention: The Indian Supreme Court in the Eighties.' International Journal of Law (1980): 47–93.