ipl-logo

The Importance Of Judicial Activism

1112 Words5 Pages

The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom.
Judicial Activism means that instead of Judicial Restraint, the Supreme Court and other lower Courts become activists and compel the authority to act and sometimes also direct the government and government policies and also administration. It is a way through justice is provided to the aggrieved citizens. Judicial Activism refers to the interference of the Judiciary in the legislative and executive fields. It is mainly occurs due to the non- activity of the other organs of the government.
The expression ‘Judicial Activism’ is often used in contrast to another expression …show more content…

The other reason is, it has been arisen also due to fact that there is a doubt that the ruling bodies are failed to deliver the goods governance. Thirdly, it occurs because the entire system has been plagued by ineffectiveness and inactiveness. The violation of basic human rights has been also led to Judicial Activism. Finally, due to the misuse and abuse of some of the provisions of the constitution, Judicial Activism has gained significance.
So sometimes judges has to act accordingly favoring that what is right to make the justice to the party vie using the power. As constitution guarantee all of its citizen right and justice without any …show more content…

The Courts themselves must display prudence and moderation and be conscious of the need for comity of instrumentalities as basic to good governance. Judicial Activism has to be welcomed and its implications assimilated in letter and spirit. An active Court is surely more effective than a legal positivist conservative Court to protect the society against legislative adventurism and executive tyranny. When our chosen representatives have been fail to give us a welfare state, Judiciary plays an active role. In Judicial Activism, the judge places his final decisions with his heart and mind which is emotionally handled.

The Indian Constitution in 1950, largely borrowed its principles from western modules parliamentary democracy and an independent Judiciary from England, The Fundamental Rights from the Bill of Rights, and federal structure in the U.S Constitution and the Directive principles from the Irish Constitution. These modern principles and institutions were borrowed from the west and then imposed from above on a semi-feudal, semi-backward society in India.
The Indian Judiciary, being a wing of the state, has thus played a more activist role than its U.S counterpart in seeking to transform Indian society into a modern one, by enforcing the modern principles and ideas in the constitution through Court

Show More
Related
350 Words | 2 Pages

1. What changes did Jefferson try to make in the relationship between government and the people? Thomas Jefferson tried to make drastic changes in the government. The biggest thing that Jefferson tried to do was make equal opinions among the people and the Government. He also made sure that the people were elected as officials and had a say in the Government.

Read More
710 Words | 3 Pages

The first is a "judicial" path, which is a direct outcome of judicial decisions such that the social reform occurs as spelled out in the ruling. The other is an "extra-judicial" path, in which the courts "do more than simply change behavior in the short run" (Rosenberg, 6), they accomplish widespread social reform by drawing a light to an issue and actually changing opinions. Extra-judicial efforts are very important for supporting a Dynamic Court, while a Constrained Court relies more on the letter of the law and rulings that follow the judicial

Read More
1518 Words | 7 Pages

To begin with, in the judicial system, there is an ongoing dispute over what compromises the proper amount of judicial power. This lack of agreement concerning policymaking power of the Courts is bestowed within the discussion between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In general, these two philosophies represent the conflicting approaches taken by judges in their task of interpretation. Consequently, the Court’s decision could be framed in terms of activism or restraint by either changing or upholding public policy.

Read More
797 Words | 4 Pages

In the year 1803, an ambivalent, undetermined principle lingered within the governing minds. The government and its “justified” Constitution were thought to be fully explained, until a notion occurred that would bring individuals to question the authority and their limit for empowerment. To end his days as president, John Adams named fifty-eight people from his political party to be federal judges, filing positions created by the Judiciary Act of 1800, under the frequently listed Organic Act. His secretary John Marshall delivered and sealed most of the commissions, however seventeen of them had not yet been delivered before Adams’s departure in 1801. On top of that, Thomas Jefferson refused to appoint those seventeen people because they were

Read More
1101 Words | 5 Pages

The known problem with this type of system comes with situations that lead to social problems, mostly if the judge that was elected make his/her decisions for the sole purpose “for the vote”, ("Procedural Law,"

Read More
102 Words | 1 Pages

Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas is a justice who 's philosophy on law has created judicial restraint due to his past and being voted in by the most narrow margin in United States history. If Judge Thomas attempted to create judicial activism and question the current laws in place it could potentially start of landslide of problems internally with other Justices and with the public. With only one year of experience prior to his appointment and replacement of Judge Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must be as conservative as possible so that he does not draw unwanted attention to him self.

Read More
486 Words | 2 Pages

Sophie Byrne John Ward POLI 100 29 March 2023 Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11 In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.

Read More
502 Words | 3 Pages

They cannot act one by themselves. Because of this reason, Judiciary branch is the least threaten to the liberty. However, the Anti Fed concerned the court lack of accountability and are too independent. Therefore, this paper was trying to retort the anti-fed concerns.

Read More
2308 Words | 10 Pages

In his book Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America, Mark Sutherland has assembled a wonderful cast of Christian attorneys, jurists, political scientists, and clergy who offer a rather perceptive analysis of judicial tyranny and our hope and means of restraining an overactive judiciary. Contributors include James Dobson, former U.S. Attorney General Edward Meese, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, Don Feder, David Gibbs, Howard Phillips, Rev. Rick Scarborough, Phyllis Schlafly, and Herbert Titus among others. For too long, Congress has been complacent in the face of an overreaching, activist judiciary that has been out-of-step with the will of the great majority of the American people, and the judiciary has overstepped the bounds of

Read More
477 Words | 2 Pages

Alexander Hamilton believed that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch for several reasons. Perhaps Hamilton felt it is the least dangerous of the three branches of government because it does not make the laws as the legislative branch does; it simply interprets the laws that have been passed by the legislative branch and that have been approved by the executive branch. Also, there was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same influence from a constitutional design standpoint. The effects of this is that the president and congress do have some control over the judiciary branch with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justice. Congress also may impeach judges which is very rare, alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution.

Read More
557 Words | 3 Pages

However, judicial activism is the other way the Constitution can be interpreted and differs from Judicial restraint because unlike judicial restraint, it changes along with society and can be changed and added to. Judicial activism changes with society like mentioned already so therefore is more effective and up to date. While Judicial restraint is good to use when a law

Read More
124 Words | 1 Pages

There are many factors behind this poll because it is a common view of the majority of the American people that in many issues, Congress has become a puppet in the hands of the President against its true will. But it is one side of the picture because the other side of the picture will show us the different scenarios. Truly speaking, Congress is not an impartial body now. The foreign policies of U.S are also not working effectively for their people. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress widespread powers to form foreign policy, though congressional activism and persuade on foreign policy has mixed over time.

Read More
334 Words | 2 Pages

Due to Constitution 's broad spectrum of interpretations, whether

Read More
478 Words | 2 Pages

Hana Kim Professor Yvonne Wollenberg Law and Politics 106 7 October 2015 Title In the United States government, there are three branches called the legislative, executive, and judicial branch. Out of these three, the judicial branch is the most powerful. The judicial branch is made up of the Supreme Court, the court with the most power in the country, and other federal courts that are lower in the system; the purpose of this branch is to look over laws and make sure they are constitutional and reasonable.

Read More
429 Words | 2 Pages

The Court’s effectiveness relies on the institutional capacities as well as the ruling’s popularity. When lower-court judges comply with Supreme Court decisions, rulings can have a substantial effect on social policies, as in the case

Read More

More about The Importance Of Judicial Activism

Related Topics

Open Document